Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Tiny edit, but one that I think should be made (but was reverted)

When reading the lede segment, I'd like to propose removing one tiny little word, and one word alone. That word is "the." Here is the "the" that I propose to remove, see bold, (I tried it once and had my edit reverted, so now I am seeking consensus before proceeding).

"The Republican Party, also referred to as the GOP ("Grand Old Party"), is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with its main historic rival, the Democratic Party."

etc. etc. etc.

That "the" to me, though perhaps seemingly slight, seems to imply a binary nature that is really not necessarily guaranteed to be there. While it might arguably be true that a two part "system" exists in the United States, I believe that a slight change here, by removing this "the" in particular makes the lede sound more inclusive and open to the real possibility (though perhaps remote) that third parties can and do exist in the USA. This is not promotion of third parties, but I believe is a reflection of a more WP:NPOV

Instead, I think that the lede line should look more like this:

"The Republican Party, also referred to as the GOP ("Grand Old Party"), is one of two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with its main historic rival, the Democratic Party."

Thank you for your time in reading this. This is about ONE word. "The." But I think it matters and was worth raising the point.

By the way, I also feel this word should ALSO be removed from the Democratic Party (United States) page in the very same area and manner that it is used as I am arguing here. So I am not targeting a change on one side or another, but rather pushing for what I perceive to be a more WP:NPOV (even if ever so slightly) on BOTH. Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 20:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: Hi! I prefer the current wording for the lead section, for these reasons:

Firstly, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party don't just happen to be dominant this year, they've been the two main parties for over 160 years and this is unlikely to change. They're built into the DNA of the American political system. The only third party with a significant number of elected representatives is the Vermont Progressive Party, which is active in only one state.

Secondly, I believe that it isn't misleading to say the blues and reds are the two main parties, both for the reason above and because saying they are "two main parties" somewhat implies there are others, which is a bit misleading.

Thirdly, the current wording (I believe) accurately describes both parties, so I see little point in changing it unless the alternative is more correct, which I do not think is the case. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi! @YttriumShrew:, I appreciate your comments, but I do think that one part reinforces and even self perpetuates the binary thinking of there being only two parties in the USA today. When you write, "because saying they are "two main parties" somewhat implies there are others, which is a bit misleading." This (to me at least) proves my point as to why it is important that we remove the "the" in the lede sentence. There are several other parties in the USA, scrambling each and every year for more votes and significance, but due to built in system concerns such as "one check voting" where you can just check a single box and then all your votes go to one party without any further thinking or consideration, it is hard here for new parties to break in. That said, they DO most certainly exist, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party are the 3rd and 4th largest for example, and combined received several million votes each year, even given the herculean task of signature raising in each and every state, that exist each year for a third parties (barriers that the Democrats and Republicans, both, do not need clear). I think it is a small WP:NPOV "ask" to remove this one single word, but frankly, I also see the problem as even more dire, given how difficult it is seeming to be, to remove even that one word (which I am not doing anyway until a "consensus" can be reached!!) Thank you for reading, and for your time and careful and kind consideration. Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 22:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Should we list European and Asian affiliates in the infobox?

The article currently includes lines in the infobox for the party's regional affilitions in Europe (European Conservatives and Reformists Party) and Asia (Asia Pacific Democrat Union), in addition to its international affiliate (International Democrat Union). Per MOS:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarize only the most essential information in the body, and that includes the infobox. Given that none of the three are mentioned in the body, and that the GOP is an American political party with very limited international operations, I felt that at most one line for those is warranted, so I kept the international affiliate but removed the European/Asian ones. Toa Nidhiki05, quick as ever, reverted me with summary It’s not excess space. These are typical for parties to have. I doubt that, given that Democratic Party (United States) does not have European/Asian affiliates, and the Asian one even had to use a custom affiliation parameter. And in any case, that's WP:OTHERSTUFF. This seems like classic infobox creep—someone added the European affiliation parameter to the political party infobox template at some point because that makes sense for European political parties, but it was never intended for use at American parties, and the only reason it's here is because it exists. Do others agree with me that it should be removed? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Remove as nom. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The United States have several territories and a state in in Asia. It's entirely relevant on there. Similarly, the European one is demonstrative of ties to the Tories and international conservatives broadly speaking. Both add value to the page. Toa Nidhiki05 18:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Remove. I've never seen these affiliations referenced outside of Wikipedia. I could see these being mentioned in a small section of the article, but not the lead or the infobox. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Remove If there are good sources for this it seems like something that could be discussed in the text and perhaps included in a table. If this exists in other political party articles it also should probably be removed. The same should probably happen to the Republican_Party_(United_States)#Groups_supporting_the_Republican_Party list at the end of the article. Who decided what should be included in that list? Springee (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

As this has been open for more than two weeks, and !votes are currently 3 to 1, it seems clear prevailing consensus is for removal. I will action accordingly. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Remove per nom. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox clarificaton

I put a note about the mayor of the District of Columbia, in the territorial governors box. That way, readers will know why the box goes up to six, rather then five. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, as (I think) Washington, D.C. is technically a federal district, not a territory, so the clarification is helpful. (It'd help if you could use an edit summary next time, though.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Another editor has removed the note, but also reduced the box from 1/6 to 1/5. This is alright (IMHO), as it still brings clarification that the DC mayor isn't a territorial governor. GoodDay (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021

Political Position= Right Wing to Far Right 69.80.22.185 (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Longstanding consensus is to not include political positions on the Republican and Democratic party articles. YttriumShrew (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there an uncontroversial way that I can mention that per Mitch McConnell, the GOP has no official legislative agenda.

It has historical significance, in being unprecedented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chowderstorm (talk • contribs) 20:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021

Position should say "Right Wing to Far Right" 69.80.22.185 (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. What position, where? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2022

X: restrictions on immigration,[16][17][18] Y: restrictions on illegal immigration,[16][17][18] 50.225.103.176 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sources seem to support the current prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Updating state legislative memberships in 2022

I don't know when the new or re-elected members assume or resume their seats in the state legislatures. Whoever does know? I hope they make the gradual & appropriate updates. GoodDay (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Only four states hold their legislative elections in "off years": Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Virginia. Those four articles will each have to be updated, if they have not already been. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully, someone will know the exact dates. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2022

Can you add Trumpism as ideology 86.58.92.148 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Affluent interests and business interests

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) Before assessing the quality of the arguments in question, I count 19 unambiguous "Yes"es to 13 "No"s, with 4 other participants that mostly left neutral comments. There were a few participants that tried to offer middle positions or split votes but none of these got significant support. I should mention for future reference that this RfC was specifically about including the statement in the body and that several of even the "Yes" votes mentioned they don't support inclusion in the lead.

The primary "Yes" argument is that there are many reliable sources for this statement, which were provided. I find this argument to be strongly policy-based, and consequently am not discounting any of the "Yes"es.

On the "No" side, there were several different arguments of differing strengths. One popular argument is that this trend has recently reversed itself. A source was provided for this argument in the discussion section below, but only one source, and not an academic source.

A second popular argument was that the statement as written is biased, should not be written in WP:WIKIVOICE, or was somehow phrased in a misleading way. Nobody making these arguments explicitly brought up WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV, but I believe many of these arguments were ultimately based on policy-based concerns even if they didn't mention the particular policies. People on the "yes" side did explicitly bring up WP:NPOV to argue that WP:NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia cannot mention any negative information ever, and furthermore asserted not including the statement despite the sourcing for it would be WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Two minor arguments were very well sourced but do not contradict the statement. One was an argument about a specific vote in Congress that goes against the statement. I think this does deserve some weight, but because the statement in question is general and specifies that Republican votes in Congress "tend" to align with business interests and the affluent, I can't give it full weight. Another well-sourced argument was that many Republican voters are working-class. However, the statement in question is not about Republican voters but Republican votes in Congress, so again, I give this argument only partial weight despite the strong sourcing.

A few people on the "no" side voted entirely based on their own beliefs or personal knowledge about American politics. This is clearly WP:OR and so I'm giving arguments based entirely on prior beliefs about American politics no weight at all.

And then finally, many arguments on the "no" side asserted that the statement in question is also true of the Democratic Party and that the sources saying it's true of Republicans were cherry-picked. I believe this argument is only weakly policy-based for two reasons. First of all, the logic doesn't hold: if the statement was true of Democrats it wouldn't make it not true about Republicans. Secondly and more importantly in my view, reliable sourcing that the statement in question is also true of the Democratic Party was not provided. People making this argument alluded to the existence of significant amounts of contradictory research but only produced a single semi-related source when challenged. (I should mention here that some of the sourcing provided by the "yes" side does explicitly say that it's not true of the Democratic Party.) Much of the basis for this argument appears to be personal beliefs about American politics, like the above. While I'm not fully discounting these votes like I did those because at least some outside sourcing was provided, I am giving them significantly less weight.

Overall, therefore, between their greater raw numbers and the greater strength of the "yes" arguments I find that there is a strong consensus to include the statement in the body. Loki (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the body include the following sentence: "The modern Republican Party's economic policy positions, as measured by votes in Congress, tend to align with business interests and the affluent"?

Restarting non-closed RFC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Restarting non-closed RfC. YttriumShrew (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources:

References

Survey (Affluent interests and business interests)

• Yes. The content is supported by peer-reviewed studies in leading political science journals and academic presses (as well as a non-peer reviewed book by two leading political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson). This seems like basic and uncontroversial information that should be conveyed about the party. It is intrinsic to political parties to explain what interests they represent. For example, social democratic parties tend to represent organized labor whereas agrarian parties (like Centre Party (Sweden)) represent rural interests and agricultural interests. I do not see a sound rationale for omitting this kind of content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Some editors below claim without evidence that the research above is outdated or somehow cherrypicked (even though the studies are numerous, less than five years old, and no evidence has been presented to rebut these studies). The claims of outdatedness and cherrypicking are false. (1) Per a 2021 review of existing literature in the leading political science journal, "the Republican Party is, broadly speaking, more aligned with corporate interests than the Democratic Party"[1]. (2) A 2021 textbook (published by the leading press for political science research) specifically says that the "evidence for a major realignment [in economic policy] is weak" during the Trump years.[2]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. We go by what reliable sources say, even if some find their conclusions uncomfortable, and the nominator has presented a compelling array of such sources. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Totally fine in the body. Well sourced. I would disagree with hafving it in the lead however. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Sources are reliable and I support the addition in the body. --Vacant0 (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Agree with addition to the body.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Well-sourced (although possibly controversial) addition to the article. YttriumShrew (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes in some form per the sources and the things I said in the discussion above; not only do they state it, many of them survey numerous other papers on it and plainly accept it as long-established fact. By my reading most of the arguments against it in the previous discussion amount to editors saying "well, I don't think that's correct", which isn't enough when the sources are this strong. Note that the sources emphasize that this is significantly more true for the Republican party than the Democrats (ie. there is a statistically significant difference in how it affects the two parties; again, read the sources and the discussion about them above). We could discuss the comparison but the thrust of it would be the same - there's substantial secondary sourcing on that aspect. Similarly, the sources cover an extended period of time up to the present day, so the people arguing that it is or has changed are speculating in contradiction to what those sources say. For reference, here is an extended block of quotes from the relevant sources (note the specific comparison of the Democratic and Republican parties, which many people below have used as their sole rationale for opposing and which the sources specifically go out of their way to discuss):
  • The Republican Party and business interests are aligned across all issue areas and are more often aligned with the opinions of the richest Americans (especially on economic policy). From the abstract.
  • We find that affluent influence does not arise through control of both political parties. Instead, the Democratic Party leadership is more likely to agree with the middle class than the affluent and represents the views of advocacy groups, whereas the Republican Party leadership is aligned with business interests and sometimes with the affluent.
  • Issue-specific measures of public opinion at different income levels also show that Republican representatives are more responsive to their affluent constituents on key votes, whereas Democrats are less responsive to the affluent (Rhodes and Schaffer 2017). Ref is to Rhodes, Jesse H. and Brian F. Schaffner. 2017. “Testing Models of Unequal Representation: Democratic Populists and Republican Oligarchs?” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 12(4): 185-204.
    • That ref says: However, individuals with Republican representatives experience an “oligarchic” mode of representation, in which wealthy individuals receive much more representation than those lower on the economic ladder. (Abstract)
    • In contrast, among individuals with Republican representatives, the relationship between income and representation is positive regardless of the data used, suggesting a model of representation that is most similar to linear inequality (if not Oligarchy).
  • Evidence from the Senate confirms the same differential partisan pattern over 39 roll-call votes and 8 legislative sessions (Lax, Phillips, and Zelizer 2019). Ref is to Lax, Jeffrey, Justin Phillips, and Adam Zelizer. 2019. “The Party or the Purse? Unequal Representation in the US Senate.” American Political Science Review 113(4): 917-940.
    • That ref says: Republican senators are, on average, more responsive to the rich than the poor, but Democratic senators are largely more responsive to the poor than rich, particularly when there is class conflict. Thus, it is Republican senators, not Democrats, who are primarily responsible for the overall pattern of affluent influence.
    • Others have considered whether Democratic and Republican lawmakers differ in the degree to which their behavior is biased towardthe preferences of the affluent. Research in this vein often finds that while both parties tend to favor the rich, Republicans do so more frequently. (An extended discussion of four other papers that support this conclusion follows, but I'll avoid it here for now unless someone really wants to see all this, since I suspect this rabbit hole could go on for a while.)
  There's more, but that's the gist of what was brought up in the previous discussion. Note also, specifically, that the most recent ref is from 2021 (ie. no, there's no indication it changed under Trump.) I'm requesting that the closer specifically disregard any comment below that argues a no based on the Democratic party being similar or things being different now unless they present sources of comparable weight - it's one thing to disagree on the weight or how to best summarize the sources, but many of the no replies below outright disregard the sources and present no argument for doing so beyond the editor's personal assertions of what they think American politics are like. --Aquillion (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes That is an objectively true statement, as backed by the sources provided, and it's couched in about as neutral a way as you can a statement like that. BSMRD (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes The sources for the sentence seem reliable, and the Party's hatred for the working class is well-known. Dimadick (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• No No longer true. The GOP reversed itself under Trump and is now very strong in white working class districts and among low-educated whites--and weak in upper income suburbs. Rjensen (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  The proposed text states specifically "measured by votes in Congress." Voting patterns are totally a different thing and are dealt with elsewhere in the article, so that is irrelevant. Neutrality^talk 22:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  Your claim is unsubstantiated and contradicts peer-reviewed research by recognized experts on that exact point: "How much did [Trump's] rhetoric lead to economic policies beneficial to red state voters? The evidence for a major realignment is weak... Here, as in many areas, Trump simply continued or intensified the GOP pattern: a focus on benefits for corporations and the rich, coupled with neglect for the party’s own voters."[3] Source: The American Political Economy (Cambridge University Press, 2021). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• No The text is cherry-picked from the sources and does not reflect the full description they provide. It ignores the successful work that the Dems have done to gain business support, particularly in financial services, high tech, retail, oil and gas, media and agribusiness. TFD (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  It ignores the successful work that the Dems have done This is not Democratic Party (United States). Even if it were somehow equally true, we wouldn't be including "Republicans and Democrats" in an article that's only about one of them. WP:FALSEBALANCE and whatnot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  I have replied in the discussion section below. TFD (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• No Per TFD. Toa Nidhiki05 14:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Sources are good, recent, peer-reviewed academic sources. No countervailing sources of equal quality have been offered (even if they were brought to bear, that would be a conversation about whether those should be added to the article, not whether this statement should go in). The comments arguing against inclusion mainly (1) boil down to "I don't like it" or (2) confuse interests represented with support base (this conflation ignores basic theories of voting behavior). Neutrality^talk 21:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - the sources seem sound, there are plenty of them, it's something I cannot imagine any of us haven't read in reliable sources beyond those listed, and the opposition thus far is way off the mark. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• No per TFD. There is also the issue that in recent times the Democrats seem to be doing the same thing. I agree with the cherry pick concerns as well. A more detailed discussion with pro and con type content and a review of Dem actions over the same period of time would probably change my view. As is, the sentence is too simplified and takes a complex topic and tries seems to cut it down to something that could be seen as a partisan claim. Springee (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Weak No per TFD and Rjensen. This most certainly was true before Trump, but now we are in a funny spot. I also do have cherry-picking concerns like Springee. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  No one has presented any research or otherwise reliably sourced content to rebut the content in question, so the charges of cherrypicking are getting to be tedious. The no votes are just feelings, irrelevant anecdotes, and bad original research. The "no" vote that all the no votes are tying themselves to (TFD) is a misinformed rant about the Democratic Party that has nothing to do with the RfC question and which is also contradicted by the actual empirical research that is cited above. The no votes are saying that we should censor academic content from the article because TFD's personal views on politics are inconsistent with the peer-reviewed research and because Rjensen is against vaccine requirements. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Struck. It appears that I have misread the RFC proposal. Snoog's was actually referring to research "as measured by votes in congress" showing that Republican party interests align more with the wealthy. I read it as something else. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Going neutral. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• No This should not be said in WP:WIKIVOICE. KidAd • SPEAK 06:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Both major political parties are controlled by their corporate donors. GoodDay (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• No This seems too bias as is a great generality. Also what is meant by alignment with the affluent, this is unclear and further leads to bias. Tepkunset (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The Democratic Party also supports the affluent with tax cuts Lunacats (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• No WP:CHERRYPICKING. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Merrrrrr? (Summoned by bot) before coming to this RfC, as a UK person, I would have thought that the statement was borderline self-evident, that the Republican Party is more often aligned with the interest of the rich. Reading some of the sources offered, they appear to be saying that whilst this still tends to be true, the issue is more complex than that. Issues like identity now take precedence was explicit in at least one source, So the statement is still true, on balance, but whether we want to include an over-simplification, I don't know. Pincrete (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - Per User:Snooganssnoogans and the sources provided. Doesn't look like cherry picking to me, looks like the reliable sources are pretty clear in their statement. Fieari (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• No - Per [4][5], Democrats are trying to lift the $10k cap on Federal tax deductions for state and local taxes paid, a gift to rich voters in blue states. This recently passed the house with zero Republican votes. This is a clear example off Democrats trying to give something to their wealthiest supporters, with the Republicans opposed. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per above. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 14:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per Neutrality, Rhododendrites et al. soibangla (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Easily supportable by the sources cited. Neutrally written and well referenced. --Jayron32 16:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes to "business interests" but No to "the affluent" since that is quite a difficult term to define, considering the highest income and wealthiest Americans are Democrats or Republicans depending on what level of income or wealth you start describing as "wealthy." Bill Williams 16:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I will not !vote on the merits of the edit but I will note that a lot of those who !voted no by saying: "Republicans do X, therefore if not Republican (=Democrat), they don't do X", is actually an argument by denying the antecedent. This very discussion is a demonstration of why this is a fallacy and not valid reasoning. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  At least for me, the argument has been that in the case of the SALT cap, the Republicans are uniformly opposed to raising it. That's a vote against the rich. Yes, the Dems are in favor, but that does not negate my original point. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• NO - as both major political parties are corporate controlled. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
• No, don't think it's necessarily true. Maybe true for Neoconservatives specifically.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• No I'm gonna say no because of my concerns over the recency of these analysis, which is important with the rapidly changing positions of the parties. I agree that these statements are broad and hard to interpret for a reader, for example, "business interest" — as in small business? big business?...what? Also affluent is vague. I've seen one editor comment on WP:WIKIVOICE concerns, and I would have to sustain that concern especially with such broad statements being made. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, with a caveat. I would be fine with this sentence in the body of the article, but it has the potential to mislead the audience. To avoid this, we should also mention the recent change in voting patterns, either immediately before or after the proposed sentence. RisingStar (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• No: Such a statement is overly simplistic and overlooks the fact that the working-class and non-college-educated Americans generally prefer the GOP while wealthier college-educated Americans now prefer the Democrats: 1,2,3,4,5 The body should be more nuanced / reflective of the sources when discussing this topic. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  (1) The RfC text is not about the coalitions that vote for the two parties (content on that is already in the article). It's about academic studies that assess the actual economic policy positions taken by the parties (as measured by votes in Congress). The existence of a poor person who votes for the Republican Party does not negate the findings of the studies in any way, so your comment is puzzling. (2) The polls you cite are specifically about whites, not the working class overall, so the comment is also just plainly incorrect. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  This is based on a misapprehension. The proposed text states specifically "measured by votes in Congress." Voting patterns are totally a different thing and are dealt with elsewhere in the article, so that is irrelevant. Neutrality^talk 03:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes — The only way to describe the party is by what it does; with votes in congress as the simplest, accurate method. The suggestions above that delve into who votes for the Republican Party gets in to the question of why a voter might cast a vote for a party. Perceived interest can vary greatly from actual interest. What politicians say is less defining than their votes. My not vote is for less obsfucation by sticking to unambiguious data points. Rather than getting into the curious nature of the American political system. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 17:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  +100. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes: we should describe the main positions of the Republican Party. The loudest arguments against this are that the Democrats also align with business interests and the affluent. I'm sure they do, so go and find sources strong enough to support that claim. Wikipedia is a work in progress and improvements are made piecemeal; we don't oppose something because nobody has yet gotten round to fixing the issue elsewhere too. The other arguments are rather strange and not based in fact. The claim is about voting records, not what came out of Trump's mouth or what people think they're voting for (we already cover both of those in the article). If you want to know what "affluent" means, read the sources, but it seems pretty self-explanatory to me. And so on (I won't waste my time refuting each one in turn). — Bilorv (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes There is unanimous agreement in scholarship and that the Democrats follow a similar course can not an objection in itself. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• No - The sentence is misleading. It could alternatively say, "Republicans in Congress tend to vote in alignment with business interests and the affluent". Meatsgains^(talk) 00:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Affluent interests and business interests)

More detail is required. Does that mean for example that Democratic exonomic poicy positions oppose business interests and the affluent? Isn't the actual difference that the Democrats are more likely to advance the interests of the less affluent, not that they are anti-capitalists? TFD (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Why are you drawing a comparison to the Democrats? That Republicans favor business interests is true regardless of what the Democrats do. BSMRD (talk)

Because of the unique nature of the U.S. two party system, discussion of one without reference to the other can be misleading. TFD (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

See the section of sources and quotes I added above (I presented them in the previous discussion and you didn't reply.) Do you disagree with them? I could understand arguing to reword things slightly - it is certainly true that affluence has a broad impact across politics, affecting both parties - but the sources seem to stress the point that... here, I'll quote them here again:

• "...affluent influence does not arise through control of both political parties. Instead, the Democratic Party leadership is more likely to agree with the middle class than the affluent and represents the views of advocacy groups, whereas the Republican Party leadership is aligned with business interests and sometimes with the affluent" (Rhodes)
• Republican senators are, on average, more responsive to the rich than the poor, but Democratic senators are largely more responsive to the poor than rich, particularly when there is class conflict. Thus, it is Republican senators, not Democrats, who are primarily responsible for the overall pattern of affluent influence (Lax, Jeffrey, Phillips, and Zelizer)
• Others have considered whether Democratic and Republican lawmakers differ in the degree to which their behavior is biased toward the preferences of the affluent. Research in this vein often finds that while both parties tend to favor the rich, Republicans do so more frequently. (ibid)

There's room to fiddle with the wording based on that, but the proposed text is clearly accurate as far as it goes; and you had ample time to make proposals to amend it in the previous discussion. Either way, I don't see how you can read such strongly-worded summaries of the research, across multiple high-quality sources, and argue for omission. If you do think there's a better summary, could you propose it? --Aquillion (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Rjensen: What you have said above isn't really a good reason. Just because the GOP receives support from working-class voters doesn't necessarily mean that they are aligned with their economic interests. As outlined in the studies above, Republican policies do tend to benefit the affluent and disadvantage the working class (take the large 2017 corporate and income tax cut and the Republican attempts to repeal Obamacare as examples.) YttriumShrew (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The rationales in the no votes puzzle me. The RfC text is not about the demographics that support or oppose the Republican Party, but the policy positions that the Republican Party holds (as measured via votes in Congress). The existence of a poor person who votes for the Republican Party =/= The Republican Party's economic policy positions align with the preferences of the poor. Similarly, the existence of a rich person who votes for the Republican Party =/= The Republican Party's economic policy positions align with the preferences of the rich. That's not what the RfC is about. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a spectacular battle underway today on the question of freedom regarding the covid 19 pandemic, mandatory mask wearing, and mandatory vaccinations. I believe in every case it's a matter of Republicans versus Democrats. The Republicans demand freedom for workers, employees, and customers to reject rules imposed by employers or local businesses. For the most part business welcomes these federal regulations because they get into nasty confrontations if they impose them themselves. I think businesses want an environment in which their employees and customers are covid-free. The case of the cruise ships requiring vaccination is a dramatic example-- in this case the governor of Florida is fighting against the cruise ship owners. The conflict is escalating every day, including governors and state officials, legislatures, public schools, universities, mayors, state courts, and federal courts. Even the news media is polarized. I believe America has never seen such intense partisanship on an issue that affects every city and state every day. In this case the Trump-oriented Republican Party is strongly committed to protecting workers against their bosses, customers against the store owners. Rjensen (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This is shifting into WP:NOTFORUM territory (as it has nothing to do with the RfC), but work safety regulations are certainly not anti-workers rights. It's certainly not pro-labor to force workers to work in an unsafe environment where selfish crackpots (usually a minority of workers) can endanger their health. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Also not anti-worker to give workers the option to take a vaccine or not. No one is forcing workers to work in unsafe environments. Tired of these specious arguments tbh. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Rjensen makes a good point.Republicans have been increasing willing to support socially conservative and other right-wing policies even when they are opposed by big business, which partly explains why the banks, high tech, media, retail, agribusiness and other sectors mostly back the Democrats. it also explains why today's Democrats are more likely to support big business. Their transition from Hillarycare to Obamacare in a great example. Another was Bush's immoigration bill, which was backed mostly by Democrats. TFD (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources supporting your claim that "Republicans have been increasing willing [sic] to support socially conservative and other right-wing policies even when they are opposed by big business" or is this all based on anecdotes? Kleinpecan (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I think some posters may be thinking what is being proposed is the equivalent of saying the sole intent by those votes is the enrichment of business and so on. It's really a means to a end (as the party sees it; right or wrong). As we already note in the article "Republicans believe that free markets and individual achievement are the primary factors behind economic prosperity...[and]...Many Republicans oppose higher tax rates for higher earners, which they believe are unfairly targeted at those who create jobs and wealth." In other words: we already note the fact that GOPers believe that prosperity begins with incentivising business/wealth. So your proposed text shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing where I think the content can be due but as stated this comes across as a partisan sentence suggesting side A is good for the rich while side B is good for the masses. The truth of course is far more complex. It's not that the general idea shouldn't be included but how it's included is important. Springee (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"as stated this comes across as a partisan sentence". This gets to the crux of many of the no votes in this RfC. They want to censor uncontested academic content because it doesn't line up with whatever partisan narratives that they are beholden to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• The question isn't whether it comes across as a partisan sentence, but whether it accurately reflects the sources; per WP:NOTCENSORED, we are not permitted to omit accurate summaries of the sources simply because they offend someone's partisan sensibilities. Similarly, WP:NPOV means we report what the sources in a neutral tone - omitting something that the sources plainly say because an editor fears that that accurate summary appears partisan is the opposite of NPOV. The truth is (obviously) always more complex, but as far as it goes this is an accurate single-line summary of the thrust of what the sources say on the topic - and if you feel there is more nuance worth adding, you're free to make additional proposals as long as it accurately summarizes the weight and emphasis of the sources and doesn't veer into WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason we should mention the Democratic Party is that in the U.S. political system, they are normally compared with each other. The first sentence of this article says, "The Republican Party...is one of the two major, contemporary political parties in the United States, along with its main historic rival, the Democratic Party." Articles for the Conservative Party (UK), the Conservative Party of Canada, etc. don't do this. The difference between the two parties tends to be one of degree.

The Democratic Party since the 1980s has worked diligently to strengthen support from big business and the affluent and are now preferred by finance, retail, agribusiness, high tech, media, manufacturing, oil and gas and many other sectors. Meanwhile, the Republicans have increasingly taken the positions of their electoral base over big business, while the Democrats have done the opposite.

TFD (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest anyone who voted yes google search "democrats republicans "big business."" All the recent articles are about the Republicans' estrangement from big business. See for example, "Why the relationship between the GOP and big business is getting complicated." It says, "The Republican-business community relationship dates back to post-World War II when moderate Republicans aligned with business interests, but that alliance has been fraying for decades as the party has moved further right, said Mark Mizruchi, a University of Michigan professor and author of “The Fracturing of the American Corporate Elite.”" TFD (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"Just google it" is not a rebuttal to the peer-reviewed research on the subject. The one news article that you posted is speculation about a shift, which points to meaningless current culture war rhetoric about wokeness in corporations from two senators (who nonetheless vote consistently in favor of corporate interests), along with historical cases about times when conservatives and corporations clashed (going back to the Reagan era). These anecdotes and individual cases do not rebut the comprehensive systematic peer-reviewed assessments that are cited above. As for the current era, political scientists do not say there has been a meaningful shift in the economic policy positions of the Republican Party during the Trump years: "How much did [Trump's] rhetoric lead to economic policies beneficial to red state voters? The evidence for a major realignment is weak... Here, as in many areas, Trump simply continued or intensified the GOP pattern: a focus on benefits for corporations and the rich, coupled with neglect for the party’s own voters."[6] Source: The American Political Economy (Cambridge University Press, 2021). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The only intelligent thing I have to bring to the table is something regarding free trade. Republicans were previously pro-free trade. I would say that Trump's tariffs disproportionately harm the wealthy. Per TFD, a lot of news articles are talking about how Republicans may no longer be the party of big business. That's where my opinion comes from. A Pew Research survey this year also found that Republican voters no longer view big business favorably, but that is not relevant. A year ago, I would have voted yes in the RFC, but I simply cannot bring myself to do that today. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"A year ago, I would have voted yes in the RFC" – This is demonstrative of wrong-headed attitude to this RfC question. If the Republican Party does indeed shift its voting behavior to be anti-business and this is documented by recognized experts in comprehensive systematic analyses (as opposed to the ridiculous anecdotes and irrelevant asides that the no votes are throwing around), then we can update the article with that information. What you're calling for us to do is to censor academic research on the topic because of anecdotes about how one Republican senator criticized diversity training at big companies and because you personally hold the inaccurate belief that the tariffs implemented by the Trump administration benefit the poor. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans I'm against tariffs. They don't benefit the poor at all. I am actually a very pro-business person. I never said tariffs benefitted the poor. Your concerns are valid. My sole reason for opposing your change is the many newspaper articles published in the past year claiming that a change has occurred. Your sources are valid, and they do support your views. I am just unsure of how we can take both these reliable book sources and these newspaper articles and write something that reflects the current situation without violating WP:OR Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hold on. I retract my comments. It appears that I misread the proposal. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

So if Republican voting patterns do not align with the interests of big business, they must be anti-business. Following that logic, how would you describe the Democratic Party? Is it a lackey of big business or is it anti-capitalist? Your suggested wording is an oversimplification that lacks nuance. A serious article doesn't just say the Republicans are pro-business end of story move on. It explains the history, the reasons, how this fits in with general U.S. politics and where it deviates. Otherwise it's just agitprop. TFD (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no clue what points you're trying to make. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is not to score points against the Republican Party but to explain it. Just saying that the voting record of the party aligns with the interests of big business and the affluent without further elaboration sounds more like pro-Democratic Party propaganda than an informative description. Why does it do this? How does it explain this? Does its competitor also do this? is there anything wrong with doing this? TFD (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Both major parties are controlled by their corporate donors. GoodDay (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I've tried not to get sucked into this debate, because it's a debate we've had before and a debate with a rather predictable course. However, I've decided to lay out my thoughts as one large post, so hopefully my position will be clearer to everyone.

First, I'll deal with the critique that this claim is not supported by the evidence. While this may be true, those who make such a claim would need to provide similar reliable sources detailing the opposite for this to be considered. Many of the no votes have also made the point that since the nomination of Trump the Republicans have shifted towards advocating pro-worker policies. This is much more of a representation of the Republican Party's move towards populist rhetoric than a concrete shift in economic policy, and is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about Congress votes.

Secondly, I'll deal with the much more interesting (and expected) critique that the proposed content is biased and/or unencyclopedic.

On Wikipedia, we usually strive for balance. While that may be a good thing to do, we often (especially with regards to U.S. politics) end up placing balance over facts. We should not do this. Wikipedia is not censored, and it is a critical error for us to not accept what is true because it makes some people uncomfortable. False balance at the expense of actual facts is against WP:NPOV.

YttriumShrew (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It's like having an article about the white side in chess. "The white side consists of a king, queen, pairs of bishops, knights and rooks and eight pawns." While that's true, the implication is that this distinguishes it from the black side. In order for the statement not to be misleading, it must begin, "Like the black side...." When we mention how the two sides are different, we would say, "Unlike the black side, the pieces of the white side are white." An article about either party is only informative if it explains the similarities and differences. TFD (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The article as it currently stands actually doesn't compare the Republicans with the Democrats that much. In the "Political position" section (where I assume this would be added) the article doesn't mention the Democratic Party that often, and the only time it explicitly compares the two is in the Healthcare section. While comparisons with the Democrats may be helpful and provide context to a certain extent, that is outweighed by the risk that including comparisons to the Dems would risk devolving into whataboutism.

The studies cited conclude that the Republicans' votes in Congress have generally favoured the interests of business and the affluent. It seems hard to justify removing that on the basis that the Democrats maybe also? YttriumShrew (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The Democrats are mentioned extensively throughout the section:

• Republicans frequently advocate in favor of fiscal conservatism during Democratic administrations.
• Many Republicans during the presidency of Barack Obama opposed his administration's new environmental regulations.
• there have been diverse and overlapping views within both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party on the role of government in health care.
• In the period 1850–1870, the Republican Party was more opposed to immigration than Democrats.
• There were not highly polarized differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party prior to the Roe v. Wade.
• Party members and Republican-leaning independents are twice more likely to own a gun than Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.
• Virtually all restrictions on voting have in recent years been implemented by Republicans [as opposed to Democrats].

In comparison, Conservative Party of Canada#Principles and policies only mentions the main rival the Liberals to say they are both "big tent" parties. Canada has a multiple party system.

The assumption is that the policies listed are where Republicans and Democrats differ. Issues which are major political differences in some countries and/or were in the U.S. are ignored: the constitution, slavery, women's suffrage, free markets. In fact the constitution would be controversial in many countries because it supports republican government, independence from England, separation of church and state, the sanctity of private property and free speech.

Therefore, if we say that the Republicans support big business and the wealthy, the implication is that Democrats don't.

TFD (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Would you agree with text that says that the Republicans are more likely to support policies that benefit the wealthy, per the sources I provided above? This seems extremely well-cited and well-established among reliable sources and avoids the implication that the Democrats never favor the wealthy at all. --Aquillion (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said, when we describe positions in a binary political system (as opposed to a multi-polar one), the implication is that they distinguish the party from its opponent, unless stated otherwise.

In the covid debate, anti-vaxxers are now citing a study, Subramanian, S.V., Kumar, A. "Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States." Eur J Epidemiol (2021). The implication of the finding to most readers would be that vaccination is ineffective. Politifact rated the reference to the article without explaining that it did not say vaccinations are ineffective as 'half true."[7] "Health Feedback" rated this approach as "misleading."[8]

Jimmy Dore, who is mentioned in both articles, defended himself by saying nothing he said was actually false. He just quoted what the article said. That's the argument you seem to make.

The finding that the Republicans support the rich, while Democrats support all the people, is not universally shared. See for example, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens." "Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."

TFD (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

That study does not assess differences between parties, does not describe the parties, and one of the authors behind that study literally says in a 2021 review of existing literature in the leading political science journal, "the Republican Party is, broadly speaking, more aligned with corporate interests than the Democratic Party"[9]. The claim that the study rebuts the RfC question text is false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The two statements are different:

• "The modern Republican Party's economic policy positions, as measured by votes in Congress, tend to align with business interests and the affluent."
• "The Republican Party is, broadly speaking, more aligned with corporate interests than the Democratic Party."

The first statement falsely implies that the Democratic Party does not align with business interests. The reality, as the second statement acknowledges, that they do, only less so than Republicans. This is in sharp contrast to Europe in the 20th century, where typically a party on the right was pro-business while the opposing party on the left would be pro-labor. Or a multi-party system where different parties would have different constituencies.

TFD (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, you would support a statement worded in the second fashion, ie. "The Republican Party is, broadly speaking, more aligned with corporate interests than the Democratic Party."? That's what I was attempting to propose. If you support it, we can add it to the RFC - or start another one given how far into this one we are. I feel that that statement accurately reflects the sources and is unlikely to be misintepreted to mean that the Democratic Party is completely unaligned with corporate interests, but if we're going to have an RFC on a better wording we should workshop it properly first this time. --Aquillion (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, that would be fine. TFD (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a good compromise. I may have misunderstood what TFD was arguing for; I interpreted that they were arguing for something like "the Republican Party's interests tend to align with business interests and the affluent. This is also true of the Democrats, although to a lesser degree", which sounds more like justification than comparison. This proposed wording is good. We'd likely need a new RfC, because the responses we've had are based on the original proposal, and we'd need to check with Snooganssnoogans, as they are the proposer. YttriumShrew (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• I would prefer this alternative proposal too. Both parties have pro-big business policies, but the Republicans do it more for the time being (that can change). Democrats are pro-immigration, pro-trade, and pro-vaccine mandates, which tend to benefit corporations. Republicans are pro-business on everything else. TFD's thoughts are reasonable to me. However, I think we'll need a new RFC Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

As an extra point, a number of editors have raised concerns that the current proposal conflates voting patterns with the party's policies. I think it is therefore important to amend the proposed statement to something like "The Republican Party's policies are, broadly speaking, more aligned with corporate interests than those of the Democratic Party." Just to be clear, I do not agree with these editors on this issue, but this amendment should hopefully alleviate their concerns. What do you all think? YttriumShrew (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Democratic senators Joe Manchin & Kyrsten Sinema's recent voting records alone, should prove the Democarats are also corporate-controlled. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This is nonsense. How does your guesstimate of the voting patterns of two Democratic senators contradict the findings of multiple peer-reviewed academic publications? Even if we assume that Manchin and Sinema vote exactly like Republicans on business matters (which has not been substantiated), do Shelley Moore Capito, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins's views on abortion prove that the Republican Party also favors abortion rights? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment There's was no reason to reopen this. if you want a close go to WP:ANRFC like everyone else has to.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Base in American South claim

Claim in the lede: don't think this applies anymore due to demographic shifts. Georgia and Virginia are already blue. Texas is going purple and Florida already is. It would be better to leave it that the GOP base leans towards rural areas and outer suburbs - or we could say that it leans towards flyover country. States like Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, the Dakotas, Nebraska are much redder than states like the Carolinas, Missouri, Virginia, Georgia, Florida. 2402:8100:3971:D52B:1948:C5D4:B327:3B7 (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Please offer reliable sources to support your proposed change. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The blue states you mentioned don't have significant populations. TFD (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Georgia and Virginia are already blue. Texas is going purple and Florida already is." No sources to support any of that. In fact the Republicans won in Virginia just a few months ago. The information is fine. Davefelmer (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"Beyond slanted"

I disagree with the rationale for removal of this content and recommend it be restored. I'm happy to provide additional reliable sources to support it, if requested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&curid=32070&diff=1064003003&oldid=1063934317

soibangla (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It should be obvious to even the most partisan readers that the phrasing violates neutral tone: [most Republicans] "continued to believe the big lie that the 2020 election had been stolen." Since the term big lie is a reference to Nazi Germany, this is a clear conflation of Republicans with Nqzis without explicitly saying so. Why should this be the big lie? What about when the Democratic leadership and their media allies told us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda in order to lie us into a war? Seems like a better example, since the original big lie was also designed to lie a country into war with false information. TFD (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The Big Lie originated with Hitler and thus was associated exclusively with him for decades, but is now also associated with the Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election, which explains why it says To support his attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, he and his allies repeatedly and falsely claimed that there had been massive election fraud and that Trump was the true winner of the election. Polls continue to show that large majorities of Republicans consistently agree the election was stolen. They agree with the big lie as it has been explained in that article. If you think the Iraq war Seems like a better example then feel free to provide reliable sources that characterize it as such, but to my knowledge (and I've looked) Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election is the first case since WW2 that the expression has been widely invoked such that it is notable. soibangla (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The only people who use the term "big lie" to describe Trump's claims that he won the election are Democratic politicians, their U.S. media supporters and a few U.S. "scholars of fascism" who have had no influence on fascism scholarship. It's shocking that Dems would resort to holocaust trivialization and the argumentum ad hitlerum to score political points, but I have not seen any of this in academic writing. Neutral tone requires us to use the language that is generally used in reliable sources, in this case experts writing in academic publications.

You missed my point about the Iraq War. I am not saying that the spin of the Democratic leadership and their media allies should be called the big lie, but that it more closely resembles the Nazi Big Lie. In fact, lying in politics is fairly common. Comparing political misconduct with Hitler is emotive rather than rather rational discussion and minimizes his crimes. When you say that the attack on the Capitol was tantamount to the Holocaust, you are also saying the Holocaust was no worse than the Capitol attack. Is that what you believe?

TFD (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, the term "Big Lie" was used by a number of writers on the Iraq War.[10] But as I said, I don't think that means Wikipedia articles should begin referring to the spin that way. TFD (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutral tone requires us to use the language that is generally used in reliable sources which is exactly what we have in abundance, but I can overcite it if anyone insists. You prefer experts writing in academic publications but such sources can lag for years as researchers have to accumulate data and go through peer review; such sources are overwhelmingly the exception rather than the rule in what we do here; and this is not the first time I've observed you call for such sources when it seems multiple reliable sources aren't going your way.

Note that the first sentence of big lie is "a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth, used especially as a propaganda technique," not that Hitler coined it. This is an important distinction as it shows Hitler doesn't "own" it for eternity, it's just not been until now that it has been suitably applied to different circumstances, namely a sitting American president attempting a self-coup to end American democracy predicated upon a firehose of falsehood, and subsequent efforts to restrict voting and control who counts/certifies votes going forward. Anyone who thinks that's hyperbolic or partisan isn't reading enough quality sources, though there could be other explanations, such as they belong to a cult.

If you're arguing that there have been other instances of the big lie between Hitler and now, it should be incumbent upon you to add them to the big lie article, but in doing so you would run afoul of the other part of your objection: that it outrageously conflates with Nazism and diminishes the Holocaust.

This is not a political argument, it transcends the traditional liberal/conservative and Democrat/Republican paradigms. It just so happens that this big lie is being perpetrated by one person and the party he holds in thrall.

Anyway, I think most/all of your objection belongs in the big lie article, where it was discussed, resolved and included. soibangla (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You are confusing partisan rhetoric with objective description. Dems said the same things about Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush, now they idolize them. Ten years from now you'll be saying how great Trump was compared with whatever demagogue is the 2032 Republican candidate.

Incidentally, Republicans call Democrats "socialists."

TFD (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I say reword "big lie" to something like "persistently repeated falsehoods about election fraud in 2020" or something. The rest is 100% accurate. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Just rewording it seems like the best choice. The rest is well-sourced and appropriately worded, and should be included in some form. --Aquillion (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the big lie is a major and defining characteristic of the Trump era GOP, and any era, it is unprecedented in American political history, it is widely discussed in the national discourse, there is a section in big lie dedicated to it, and so we should wikilink to it. I don't see any good reason to be coy about this simply because some deny it, which is in defiance of content contained in perhaps dozens of our articles, and which defiance can itself be construed as part of the big lie. soibangla (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Many Democrats still refuse to accept that Trump won the 2016 prez election. Welcome to the age of partisanship among voters & corporate control over both major political parties. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source supporting the idea that a large majority of democrats believe that, as sources say here for Republicans? If not then it seems like an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sort of argument - the coverage is obviously not comparable, presumably because the underlying facts (as RSes describe them) are not comparable. Sources reasonably support the fact that this is a defining feature of the current era of the Republican party; I don't believe you can produce comparable sources supporting the idea that 2016 election denialism was significant in scope, let alone that a large majority of Democrats embraced it or that it defined an era of Democratic politics. --Aquillion (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Have an RFC on the matter, instead of attempting to force it into the article. That way, the dispute among editors will end - with the RFC decision. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I see GoodDay is spouting bullshit. ––FormalDude talk 09:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You're too sweet. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

––FormalDude talk 05:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile, concentrate on the fact that the Senate Democrats are not going to abolish the filibuster or pass any voting rights bills. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I'd use the precise phrasing the OP did, but that can be improved over time. Overall, the information is fine and is supported by the references. The only objections I'm seeing is the normal grumbling and feet-dragging by a few editors who hang out here and instinctively revert anytime anything negative about the GOP is added. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW I'm neither a Republican or Democratic fan, as both are corporate controlled. Putting that aside, an RFC should be held on whether or not the proposed content should be included. GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Source for "Many Democrats still refuse to accept that Trump won the 2016 prez election? soibangla (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody's proposing to include that in this article. GoodDay (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's irrelevant, as are the filibuster and the voting rights bill, so why did you bring them up? soibangla (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Because I chose to. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Factions of the GOP...please add Fascists and Racists

"Feeling" isn't grounds for inclusion. Please find reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I feel that current political thought now accepts that the Republican Party of 2022 includes sign,nificant fascist and racist elements. Please add these to the facions section. Thank you. 69.248.86.147 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC) well no. All major parties have "racist" members but reliable sources do not state they comprise an organized faction of the GOP. "Fascist" is an occasional rhetorical attack but does not represent an organized faction of any American party. Rjensen (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Could we hat this please? Not productive. DN (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2022

This was a talking point on the talk page however it hasn't been acted on. We should add a political position of Right-wing to the infoxbox. Some will say that it cannot describe the party in two words, however, it is clearly evident even in the ideology it is a Right-wing party. James1221911 (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This change would need more discussion than the small section above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just noticed this sentence:

"While Republican nominee John C. Frémont lost the 1856 United States presidential election to Democrat doughface James Buchanan, Buchanan only managed to win four of the fourteen northern states, winning his home state of Pennsylvania narrowly."

I assume "doughface" is vandalism. If not, it's certainly not neutral and probably should be removed.

I'm not an active editor, and I don't know the norms here, but the page is locked, so I can't fix this. I assume that someone who can monitors this.

Scott@sauyet.com (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 20:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC).