Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Claims of missing viewpoint regarding inclusion of GOP support for Great Replacement Theory

@Springee You have once more removed mentioning of GRC in the article, citing WP:UNDUE. Which viewpoint do you think was not represented? The best you could come up in the past was a single opinion piece from a source not considered to be generally reliable (Newsweek). Do you have anything better at this point? Cortador (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like time for another round of discussion on this topic. Perhaps a poll? DN (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for what viewpoint is allegedly not represented here (based on removal of the bit citing WP:UNDUE). Cortador (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not due in a section on immigration policy and honestly, isn't due in the whole article for all the reasons previously outlined. Springee (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

What viewpoint is allegedly not represented here? Cortador (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is it undue for the entire article? DN (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Springee What significant viewpoint do you think is not represented here? Cortador (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Please don't ping me. I'm following the discussion. Your question doesn't make sense. Springee (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You removed content from the article repeatedly citing WP:UNDUE. WP:UNDUE states:

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

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position and then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require a much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.

What viewpoint is missing? If you are unwilling or unable to explain why a policy applies and why used it to remove content, revert your edit. You said you don't want Great Replacement Theory mentioned in the article at all, despite the topic being covered by plenty of reliable sources, and the inclusion having support from at least two other editors. Cortador (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I've already said why this is an issue. First, it's a misleading talking point. What the survey found, while aligned with part of the GRCT, was not the same thing as the GRCT. Thus we are dealing with a talking point claim vs something that is a reliable fact. As I recall the same surveys found that a sizable minority of democrats believed the same claim about democrats favoring immigration because it they believe it helps them at the poles. And, just as importantly, this claim that you have been pushing is not a description of the GOP stance on immigration or immigration policy which is what that section was about. So it would have very little weight in the section at hand as it's only adjacent to the topic. Quoting large sections of policy text doesn't improve your claim but it, along with repeatedly asking the same question because you didn't like the last answer, becomes tendentious. I think we should let others weigh in. Springee (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You did not revert the addition for those reason, you reverted them because they supposedly missing a viewpoint, as per the policy you again and again cited. Your point about Democrats is whatbaoutism. Add that to the page of the Democratic Party if you wish to. GRCT us inherently tied to immigration, and the sources confirm that as well. Cortador (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Please do not edit war. It's clear we aren't going to convince one another. I guess you are correct in that BALASP vs UNDUE is the correct reason. However, given how often UNDUE is cited when editors actually mean BALASP it is disingenuous to presume one vs the other and to ask questions such as "What viewpoint is allegedly not represented here?" vs perhaps clarifying if the content should be included at all. Again, let's give others a chance to weigh in. Springee (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice to see that you actually read the policy you have been citing a dozen times now. That said, BALASP doesn't apply because GRCT didn't get undue attention. Cortador (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Funny that you are saying undue as many editors, myself included, often use it. I wonder if you have ever used that same meaning? BALASP does apply because you are giving the topic undue attention, especially in a more policy related section. Springee (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't care whether or not you like to cite policies incorrectly. If you cite and link to a policy, I expect that to be about that actual policy. You want GRCT not to be mentioned in the article at all, and you have yet to explain why considering the coverage the topic got in the context of the GOP. Cortador (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with Springee here. Ultimately it seems out of the sources cited there's one that might be relevant (NPR). The next source talks about Trump voters specifically (not synonymous with Republicans) and then the rest of the paragraph compares this to 2013. This strikes me as undue (or BALASP etc). — Czello ^(music) 13:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If we need to spur this discussion along I would propose an NPOV tag. DN (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Springee & Cortador, just a heads up I have consolidated the 2 talk sections. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. Precisely what is it you think is missing from the article? HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It may help to look at the previous discussion. There are dozens of RS on the prevalence of GRCT becoming a more mainstream talking point in the GOP, which we began discussing in January. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Didn't help at all. That discussion BEGINS by discussing an acronym! You may be obsessed with whatever this subject is, and know everything about it, but other editors don't. If you can't explain it simply here, maybe it doesn't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You have to ask Spirngee and Muboshgu. Both removed the additions regarding GOP support for the GRCT on the grounds that certain viewpoints aren't represented (citing WP:UNDUE), and then repeatedly failed to iterate which viewpoints those are. Springee now claims that GRCT shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all, despite the topic being covered by RS in the context of the GOP. Cortador (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You could help by explaining what GCRT is. We DON'T have a Wikipedia article on it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Great Replacement (Conspiracy) Theory. We haven an article on it, and one on GRCT in the US as well. Cortador (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the name YOU were using needs to become a redirect to at ;east one of those articles. Searching Wikipedia for GRCT returns nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The section DN linked you to has "Great Replacement" in its name. It's not that opaque. Cortador (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples I started a RfC as per your suggestion as this likely won't be resolved otherwise. Cortador (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I suggested a poll, which is much less involved and time consuming than an RfC. I felt an NPOV tag would have also sufficed. I would reconsider the RfC at this point per WP:RFCBEFORE. There are other avenues for determing due WEIGHT and positioning within the article. DN (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe this is solvable without a RfC any more. Cortador (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

In that case, here are some recent reports of it's proliferation during 2024, as there are many stretching back to the Trump administration and the Unite the Right Rally in 2017.

• During the 2010s replacement theory became popular in the United States among white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and right-wing militias, among other extremists, whose racist rhetoric and ideas were more freely expressed during the presidency of Donald Trump (2017–21). Encyclopedia Britannica

1. Donald Trump, who has responded by calling Biden “the real threat to democracy” and alleged without proof that Biden is responsible for the indictments he faces, turned to Biden’s border policies on Saturday, charging that “every day Joe Biden is giving aid and comfort to foreign enemies of the United States.” “Biden’s conduct on our border is by any definition a conspiracy to overthrow the United States of America,” he went on to say in Greensboro, North Carolina. “Biden and his accomplices want to collapse the American system, nullify the will of the actual American voters and establish a new base of power that gives them control for generations.” Similar arguments have long been made by people who allege Democrats are promoting illegal immigration to weaken the power of white voters — part of a racist conspiracy, once confined to the far right, claiming there is an intentional push by the U.S. liberal establishment to systematically diminish the influence of white people. Trump leaned into the theory again at his rally later in Virginia, saying of the migrants: “They’re trying to sign them up to get them to vote in the next election.” AP News Axios

2. The Great Replacement narrative, rooted in white nationalism, posits without basis that a powerful cabal of elites are deliberately replacing white Americans with immigrants. In the last several years, the narrative has evolved into versions that appeal to different audiences. An antisemitic version of it, which surfaced during recent truck convoys focused on the border crisis, accuses Jews and Jewish organizations of engineering the surge of asylum seekers. Another version, voiced by some high-ranking GOP officials, asserts that Democrats are intentionally bringing in immigrants to dilute the strength of Republican voters. This narrative has been articulated by now-GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician), including at a House Judiciary Committee hearing prior to his elevation to party leadership. NPR

3. Vivek Ramaswamy also boosted the "great replacement theory," the white nationalist belief that immigration policies are designed specifically to dilute the political power of white Americans by making them a smaller share of the population. ABC News

4. The immigration debate has historically been laced with racist and antisemitic rhetoric and conspiracy theories. These poisonous ideas are center stage in the drive to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Impeachment proponents in Congress accuse Mayorkas of deliberately inviting an immigrant invasion. This draws directly from the “Great Replacement” theory, which explains demographic change as a plot against white people, often instigated by Jews to undermine white dominance and usurp power. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote the impeachment resolution accusing Mayorkas of failing in his duty to “prevent invasion” and the “willful admittance of border crossers.” Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green (Tennessee politician) (R-TN) and House Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) claim that Secretary Mayorkas is intentionally encouraging more immigration. Nefarious “intent” is a key feature of replacement theory – the conspiratorial idea that immigrants are lured to the United States to dominate and reshape American culture and politics. As Rep. Randy Weber said, “A full-blown invasion. America will be unrecognizable…..” Time

5. Michigan Representative Josh Schriver's staff was reassigned and he was removed from a House committee as punishment for sharing a social media post that included a racist conspiracy theory, the state's House speaker announced on Monday.Newsweek CBS The Hill

6. It’s a reminder that Republican and Trump’s own efforts to appeal to Black and Hispanic voters are happening as the party also centers heavily on the politics of White grievance, including in its most extreme forms. The “great replacement theory,” centered on a conspiracy involving immigration, is broadly accepted among Republicans, creating oxygen for fringe-right racists like those NBC saw at CPAC. WaPo

....This list keeps going... DN (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate and missing factions in the Infobox and article

Currently, the infobox for the GOP lists several factions, including fiscal conservatism and neoconservatism. However, in the section of the article called "Factions" it does not list fiscal conservatism or neoconservatism. On the Factions in the Republican Party (United States) page, it does list neoconservatives but also does not list fiscal conservatism as a faction of the GOP. It also lists Trumpists and an Anti-Trump faction as factions of the modern GOP, two factions that are not mentioned on the main GOP page.

The separate factions page also states how "As of 2023, the dominant faction in the Republican Party consists of Trumpists – a movement associated with the political base of former president Donald Trump." Yet this fact is not made clear in this article itself, merely stating that it the modern GOP has intense factionalism (which it does) and that it has moved in a populist direction (which it has), but there is no great mention of Trumpists or the Never Trump movement. In fact, Typing in anti-Trump or Never Trump returns zero results.

The page also lists "Social conservatism" as a faction in the modern GOP; however, both this page and the factions page do not list "social conservatism" as a faction. The page for social conservatism in the United States itself lists how "In the United States, one of the largest forces of social conservatism is the Christian right." This page also lists social conservatism as a motivating factor under the Conservatives faction itself. Both pages do not list social conservatism as a distinct faction within the modern GOP, but merely an ideology influencing the Conservatism and Christian right factions.

Thus, I would propose the following changes:

1. Fiscal conservatism is removed from the factions section on the infobox, and mentioned instead as a strand of conservatism within the body of the article itself.
2. Neoconservatism is added as a faction within the body of this article under the 21st century section.
3. Trumpism and the anti-Trump factions are added to this article.
4. Social conservatism is removed as a faction in the infobox and instead mentioned and linked to within the body of the article under the Christian right and and conservative factions.

Another potential alteration (#5) would be to have the existing right-wing populist section and far-right section merged within the Trumpism section, or as a subheader within that section itself. As Trumpists are the dominant faction in the modern GOP today, it probably deserves a bit more writing than it currently has. BootsED (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources do seem to combine populist and far right factions under the same umbrella. They are not mutually exclusive according to any authoritative or scholarly opinions, AFAIK. DN (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

How is this different than the Trumpism discussion from December? Springee (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Because the previous discussion was narrowly focused on the infobox. This one seeks to harmonize Wikipedia’s own pages on factions of the Republican Party and the differences existing between and within them. BootsED (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

1. Seems to make logical sense, and there are no arguments against it so far.

2. I'm not sure of who makes up the neoconservative faction anymore mostly due to Trumpism.

3. This makes sense to me

4. This seems to make sense, as most social conservatives seem to follow a theistic Judeo-Christian approach, but I'm not certain and might refer to others.

5. It makes sense to put Far-right in a subcategory under Populist DN (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The previous discussion was pretty clear that editors opposed adding this as a faction. If it doesn't make sense for the info box with factions then many of the same arguments would apply here. I would suggest pinging editors who were involved in the previous discussion. Springee (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Not true. There were four people in favor (including me), and two people opposed, yourself and one other. One person was undecided. The conversation just kinda died out by itself. With that in mind, I think it would be appropriate to finally have this page updated. BootsED (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Please ping the involved editors as well as provide sources here so they can be evaluated. Springee (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m afraid to ping editors as it could be considered canvassing. BootsED (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinning editors involved with the previous discussion is considered reasonable notification. Springee (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

If you’d like to you can ping all the former editors in the previous discussion. I just want to make sure I’m not breaking any rules. BootsED (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

In regards to neoconservatives I also agree with your assertion. However, it is listed on the separate Republican factions page so the main page should probably not say something different than what the more in-depth page itself says. Seeing that no one has raised any issues with #1 and #4 I’ll go ahead and make those alterations later tonight. BootsED (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I object. Please provide the sourcing Springee (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Part of my argument is that the page dedicated to Factions in the Republican Party (United States) mentions current 21st century factions that are not mentioned in this article. I don’t want to simply copy all the sources used there but it should hopefully suggest to you that there is a large body of evidence that these proposed changes are necessary. If you disagree with the factions in that article you should make your case why they should be removed on that articles talk page. Otherwise, I am quite simply updating this page to match what has already been said on the other page specifically about this very topic (obviously a much shorter version on this page, though). BootsED (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Springee, if you still object could you be a bit more specific or point out the previous discussion, please? Cheers. DN (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems reasonable as long as the article notes that the party as a whole is largely fiscally and socially conservative.

Reading the sources for social conservatism: the second one already states that the GOP "generally socially conservative". The third one states that "Reagan gave rhetorical support to the pro-life movement but made little effort “to deliver the legislative victories that social conservatives desperately desired”" i.e. doesn't mention a social conservative faction specifically. The first source mentions "the party’s socially conservative faction", but also states:

"The GOP adopted a platform Monday that takes a hard line on issues like abortion and gay rights, a sign that Donald Trump has ceded the party’s social agenda to evangelical Christians despite his own ambivalence on those matters."

This IMO makes it clear that the social conservative faction isn't isolated, but, according to this author, also the evangelical/Christian conservative faction. Cortador (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better to put only actual factions into the info-box. Factions are groups that have formal organizations with defined membership such as the Freedom Caucus. Conservativism, libertarianism etc. are not factions but are ideologies, albeit unclearly defined with considerable overlap. Complex issues like that are better described in the article. TFD (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree with you. It is interesting, however, that in the infobox for the Republican Party, it clearly states that the section is "ideology" which is listed as majority conservatism, but then it also has "Factions" within that same section that simply lists other ideologies and factions. The listed factions/ideologies are also different from what the page Factions in the Republican Party (United States) lists are the factions of the modern Republican Party. This is the issue we should resolve. BootsED (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to update everyone that I have started work on updating and expanding parts of the factions section. I will be filling out and adding better sources to the other factions in the near future once I have some more free time. BootsED (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hope it's not too late to add an opinion. I am not against the new factions list, it's more concise than the old one, however I am looking at the Trumpists faction listed. Wouldn't they fall under Right-wing populists in the old factions list? I can actually see them falling under most of the factions listed old and new notably except perhaps the centrist/moderate grouping. With that being said, I am not against the new changes. However they must be sourced inline. We can (and should based on this conversation) list the new factions. However we should put sources in the infobox to go along with it. Completely Random Guy (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Completely Random Guy, Trumpists consist of multiple ideologies including right-wing populism, national conservatism, and neo-nationalism, among others. As each faction of the Republican Party often includes multiple differing ideologies, such as the Christian right including social conservatism and christian nationalism, if we put every single ideology that each faction follows within the factions section it would be extremely long. Also, there was discussion about the difference between factions and ideologies of the party, of which right-wing populism would be an ideology and not a faction. The overarching ideology of the Party is conservatism, but right underneath that section it lists "Factions," so factions of the party and not ideologies should be instead listed. This was what my edit previously addressed. If we need sourcing for this that can easily be added as the listed factions are also listed within the "Factions" section of this page and the separate page Factions in the Republican Party (United States).BootsED (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see neo-nationalism's role in this party. American nationalism had seen new waves of supporters since the September 11 attacks. Is there much of a difference between American nationalists of the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, or the 2020s? Dimadick (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources state the Trumpist faction of the Republican Party includes neo-nationalism as a part of other ideologies including right-wing populism, Trumpism, and national conservatism. If you’d like you can review the sources on related pages that list Trumpists as neo-nationalists. Note, this is for the Trumpist faction of the GOP, which is a part of the larger GOP which is majority conservative. This is also another reason why we should not include each and every ideology of every faction within the party in the infobox, but merely link to the factions of the party as established in Factions in the Republican Party (United States) page itself. BootsED (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I totally understand. With that being said, should the new listing include conservatives twice? And last point should we rename "Moderates" to "Centrists"? Completely Random Guy (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Conservatives are listed twice as the first conservative is listed as "conservatism" next to "Ideology" as it refers to the overarching conservative ideology of the party. The second conservative is listed as "conservatives" as it refers to the faction of the political party as it is listed underneath the "factions" part of the infobox, which should list all factions, not ideologies. It just so happens that there is a faction of conservatives in a party which follows conservatism.

In regards to moderates vs centrists, I chose to call it moderates as that is what it is called in the Factions in the Republican Party (United States) page itself and is what the provided sources call the faction/wing of the party. It could be renamed to centrists, but we would also have to then rename that part of the page and elsewhere on Wikipedia where we call them moderates in order to stay consistent. BootsED (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand! I agree with the changes! Now I was wondering if we should open a talk page discussion on doing the same for the Democratic Party? Not much needs to change on that page except maybe replace "Social democracy" with "Liberalism, as the other factions are already listed. Thoughts? Completely Random Guy (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The Democratic Party page currently has ideologies listed in its Factions section instead of linking to factions on the Factions in the Democratic Party (United States) page. There is also a discrepancy between the main Democratic Party page and the factions page as the main page says conservatives are a faction and a factions page does not. I have already commented on the talk page about this discrepancy. Once there has been a consensus about this issue, I hope to address the factions listed on the main page itself. BootsED (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll go add to the convo there. Completely Random Guy (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Onondaga the birth place of the Republican party?

Syracuse.com reported Horace Greeely, Vivus W.Smith and Thurlow Weed on June 17th 1854; Made the plans for the Republican party under an Elm tree in Syracuse New York. Could this be accurate? EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The standard historians (like Gould, Mayer, Gienapp) do not mention this episode. It's a local legend (complete with a plaque on this tree at this spot but not true Rjensen (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)