Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Proposal: "Big tent" for both parties

Can we just do what we do for parties like Five Star Movement, etc. and make both the Republicans and Democrats "big tent" parties? Otherwise, we're just going to have editors go back and forth selectively editing the political position template. Hate to vent but I'm absolutely exhausted from this debate. It's definitely the most accurate description as well. KlayCax (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Viriditas:, @Toa Nidhiki05:, @Mhaot:, @The Four Deuces:, @BootsED:, @Carlp941:. Not having a political spectrum in the infobox was the right idea. If not, we should do "big tent" for both, as you could selectively pick various eras in both party's history to argue whatever you wanted. KlayCax (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, this makes the parties sound like a circus and completely ignores the sources. Dimadick (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

We're already ignoring many of the sources, @Dimadick:.

• Some assert that the Republican Party is a center-right party.
• Some assert that the Republican Party is a center-right party within the American political spectrum. Yet, when viewed internationally, "right-wing".
• Others assert that it is a predominantly a prototypical "radical right" party or far-right. (Especially since 2016.) KlayCax (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

And because they make contradicting assertions... there's not really a way to do it in a manner that's not WP: OR or violative or WP: NPOV.

The only other alternative I can think of is "center/center-right to far-right". Yet that's almost as good as useless. Everyone knows that the Republican Party is overwhelmingly the more comparably right-wing party.

Making the infobox useless. KlayCax (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I doubt there will be a consensus to overturn anything. While I did prefer the page without positions, the compromise that has been reached is acceptable and based on reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 16:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Several of the sources used for the "center-right to right-wing claim" (which contradicts the RFC conclusion of "right-wing") assert that the Republican Party is now a prototypical far-right party. Not a center-right or right-wing one. Yet that claim is entirely excluded from the infobox. It's obvious that, as several here have mentioned, that the RFC was concluded and then editors attempted to find sources that back up the claim. That's not how it works. KlayCax (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The original addition of a position that triggered the RfC had sources. However, nobody brought them up during the discussion. Cortador (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose.

I do not think "big tent" accurately describes the GOP. I was giving 5SM as an example of Wikipedia's ability to describe political parties with a broad spectrum of ideologies by following the reliable sources. Big tent is not the most accurate descriptor, and is definitively not the consensus of reliable sources writing on the GOP.

Please don't use a article talk page to vent. Carlp941 (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

"Big tent" of the political right is accurate. In my opinion. The party houses traditional conservatives, right-wing populists, libertarians, (in the Northeast) centrists, and more all within the same banner. The same applies for the Democrats (within the left-wing to center-right). Reliable sources definitely don't universally label the party a "center-right to right-wing party". Many allege that it's a predominantly right-wing populist party now. KlayCax (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss this with you but I am also going to ask that you don't vent-edit as well. The sources are high quality academic sources. Please do not smear them with spurious tags about their reliability. Carlp941 (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of the current consensus is that the article should have the political position filled in, backed up by reliable sources. Editors put their finger to the wind and decided right wing was the probable outcome. That part was misguided, it definitely seems to have created some sour grapes - but we were flexible, and it seems to have reached an academically backed conclusion of center right to right wing. I don't think this is WP:OR, we arent making any unsupported conclusions - simply noting that some academic sources call the party center right, and some call the party right wing. I dont think making the jump to say "the party is center right to right wing" is a particularly offensive one.

I think your content objections will need reliable sources. Please post some! Happy to discuss. Carlp941 (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue is going to maintenance. There's a small but dedicated group of editors and IPs that have a single purpose: to edit political positions to be whatever they personally think is best. I think we have a strong consensus, but there needs to be vigilance in preventing said editors from making their own personal opinions into page reality here. Toa Nidhiki05 17:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: Not a personal attack, but you aren't one to be calling out "personal opinions" of other editors. I've read through most of your comments above, and you seem hell-bent on making sure the GOP is not described "right-wing" but something closer to "center-right", and you seem to only associate "far-right" with Nazis and whatnot. The term far-right isn't just reserved for the ultranationalist fascists, but also for hardline conservative, right-wing populist parties, such as you may find in Europe like AfD or RN. Don't claim that far-right = solely Nazism, please. There is clearly a major right-wing to far-right faction in the GOP as of today, under the banner of Trumpism. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

As I think has been clearly established with reliable academic sources, the "far-right" label simply isn't accurate. And as far as non-academic, reliable media sources go, only part of one party faction (the smallest one in the House) - the freedom caucus - is considered far right, with the remaining factions all being center, center-right, or right-wing. This isn't based on opinion - it's based on reliable sources.Toa Nidhiki05 22:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, apologies for my long and rambling comment up above, but if you can show how the far-right label fits (or doesn't fit) going back to Nixon, that would be helpful. I think there's a consensus that the party has moved farther to the right since then. I brought this discussion up with one of your allies, User:Jweiss11 some time ago. They provided a very interesting and detailed counterargument, in an attempt to "flip the tables" so to speak, on my own argument. According to them, it is the Democratic Party that has moved to the left, which is why it seems like Republicans have moved to the right. While this would be another data point supporting your position, I continue to maintain that it is somewhat of an alternative reality in many respects. All I'm saying is, you may need to come up at this from different POVs. I think Jweiss is quite good at that, and while I completely disagree with his characterization, he is quite adept at making these arguments, and it's frankly fascinating to consider that two people can have such vastly different views on this subject. For example, I've been trying very hard to wrap my mind around people like Sarah Isgur, but I just can't seem to do it. Instead, I find myself agreeing with divisive and theatrical personalities like Keith Olbermann, and similar, but less divisive arguments made by Rachel Maddow. I keep asking myself, was I born this way, or did I come to these beliefs in other ways? I don't know the answer. It is difficult for me to believe that the GOP is center-right, even with your stats. But I think you should invite people like Jweiss11 to comment because they have a unique take on this that you might enjoy. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas, I'm sensing I may getting drawn into another conversation here that will veer into WP:FORUM territory. You are welcome to take this discussion to my talk page and invite Toa Nidhiki05 and whoever else you would like. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No problem, but I was hoping you could provide at least one reliable source (academic or journalistic) that shows the Democratic Party moving to the left. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I would support keeping center-right to right-wing. Wikipedia's own page for List of right-wing political parties lists the Republican Party, but not "Category:Far-right political parties in the United States. I would encourage editors to make their arguments based on reliable sources, not personal opinions and arguments. Ideally, peer-reviewed articles and published sources, not news articles and opinion pieces. This is partly why I agreed to put center-right to right-wing for the Republican Party, as Toa presented very high-quality sources that described it as such. I go based on what facts and RS state, not my own personal opinion. We are also talking about the party as a whole, not a small faction or wing of the party. BootsED (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Jeremy W. Peters, Insurgency: How Republicans Lost Their Party and Got Everything They Ever Wanted (2022). What does "losing their party" mean to you, BootsED? Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster... pp. 32-37. Fabrizio charted the rightward shift of the GOP as early as 1992, but solidifying by 2003. While working as the chief pollster for Senator Bob Dole's 1996 presidental campaign, Dole's strategy was "to adopt positions that were far to the right of where he was comfortable". By 2007, the GOP "was getting angrier and more conservative. Self-described conservatives were squeezing moderates out, he found. Only 55 percent of Republicans had described themselves as conservatives when Fabrizio polled in 1997. Now that figure was 71 percent." The book goes on like this for 400 pages, all footnoted showing the GOP losing the center to the far right by the time Obama was elected. Peters notes that by 2009, the moderate, "pragmatic, centrist" tradition of Rockefeller Republicans had come to an end. If a GOP candidate became known as a moderate, it was "disqualifying" at the ballot box. (p. 54). Peters notes many reasons for the shift, and focuses on all the GOP candidates who were attacked by their own party, weeding out the moderates for good. There's a great deal written on this subject beyond just this book. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Heather Cox Richardson, To Make Men Free: A History of the Republican Party (2014). Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Toby James, The Trump Administration: The President’s Legacy Within and Beyond America (2022). Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I had not heard of these sources beforehand. This is very helpful. BootsED (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, I think a lot of this discussion we are having now also relates to the recent good article nomination for the page that was denied, where it was stated that "I'll be frank, stability here is something beyond your or my control, and I don't think this article will be close to passing that criterion until... well, until either American politics becomes a lot calmer, or until the Republican party ceases to exist." I think the Republican Party's rapid transformation over the past decade means that calling it center-right to right-wing is probably most accurate due to the immense change currently happening within the party, and sources describing it as both. As time goes on, I wouldn't be surprised if in two to four years we will see even more sources explicitly saying that the GOP is no longer "center-right" to such an extent that the center-right position can be removed. I do think some of these sources you have presented, with appropriate quotes and page citations, should be included as sources for the "right-wing" designation. BootsED (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, but many of these sources note the loss of the center in the party after the 2007–2008 financial crisis, with the 2009 Tea Party movement hastening its end. I'm not sure why people are only catching on now. I've been writing about this here and there for years. One other unanswered question I have is what happens to the center of a party when it is overtaken by populism? From what I can tell, it is vanquished. Both the left and the right have a deep-seated hatred for centrism. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

In a two-party system were both parties have about half of the voters (and thus half of the spectrum), it's fairly hard for actual centrism to gain ground, because both parties are inherently going to occupy either the entire right or the entire left. Toa Nidhiki05 01:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Well said. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie I very strongly agree with you on this. I think the far-right faction of the Republican Party is overwhelmingly significant, and leaving it out detriments the integrity of this article. Dhantegge (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal - (in line with "big tent")

Democratic Party - Centre to left-wing

Republican Party - Centre-right to right-wing

Optional for the Republicans - centre to right-wing, although @Viriditas has made a good case for the age of the truly centrist Republican coming to an end.

You''ll have to forgive my New Zealand English spelling there. Some overseas perspective is useful. Arguably the most successful moderate republicans out there, Larry Hogan and Phil Scott, are both moderate liberal conservatives, comparable to the Liberal Party of Australia and the New Zealand National Party (minus the idiosyncratic culture wars present in both). But they're both centre-right, and "moderate" in the American sense is a very low bar. I think I remember people referring to Liz Cheney as moderate (such as here), which to me is utterly farcical. But the point remains that the genuine "centre" of the Republicans has long gone.

As for the Democrats, you see the label "far-left" occassionally thrown around, but this is pretty ridiculous, and usually just an old anti-Communist trope the right dishes up sometimes. I don't think we even have a consensus on Wikipedia as to what far left politics even are - "The term does not have a single, coherent definition; some scholars consider it to be the left of communist parties, while others broaden it to include the left of social democracy."

TL;DR - There is good evidence to suggest no centrist Republicans genuinely exist anymore, and "far-left" is a stupid contentious label that should be aborted. Dhantegge (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

There is not good evidence to suggest centrist Republicans do not exist any more. In fact, reliable sources identify three major Republican factions (the Problem Solvers Caucus, Republican Governance Group, and Republican Main Street Partnership) as centrist. Reliable sources also indicate the largest Republican faction - the Republican Study Committee - as center-right to right-wing, like the party itself. Only the smallest faction - the Freedom Caucus - is defined as unequivocally right-wing. By most accounts, centrist Republicans dwarf the far-right in size. Toa Nidhiki05 14:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: centrist Republicans dwarf the far-right in size... mate, you just know that isn't even true... Trumpists, a right-wing to far-right group, are now the largest faction in the party. The party's political positions should also be taken into account, not just what some committees are classified as. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

And I would support a proposal of Right-wing for the party, but with a note saying "With center-right and far-right factions". This is most representative of the party today. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That was also what most during the last RfC supported, Cortador (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

As other editors have mentioned - the last RfC was not based off reliable sources, and the close itself was only for "right-wing" (even if you accept a consensus without sources as binding). It was based off of editor opinions. Reliable sources have since been shown to establish a broader spectrum.

Moreover - the reliable sources don't, in fact, show the House Freedom Caucus as having a majority. They are the only caucus identified as having far-right members (the article currently sources the far-right as comprising "some" members of the freedom caucus, as well as a few other miscellaneous members), and they are also the smallest one. The vast majority of Republicans belong to the center, center-right, or right-wing. Contemporary and reliable academic sources also clearly identify the party as both center-right and right-wing. Editor opinions do not matter here - sources do. Toa Nidhiki05 17:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The original addition of a position that triggered the RfC had sources. However, nobody brought them up during the discussion. Cortador (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

This is complete tomfoolery. The Republican party would be best described as Right-wing or Right-wing to far-right due to Trumpism being considered far-right by a majority of sources. In the American political spectrum, it should be centre-right, but if so, then there should be a seperate note added. If I had control over position, I'd place the Republican party as right wing, with factions from the centre-right to far-right. And with the Dems, I'd put them at centre to Centre-left social, centre-right economic, and with factions of the centre-right to left wing (prog caucus/two conservative members of the senate) 59.102.22.11 (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The AfD is neo-Nazi, while RN is neo-Fascist. Essentially, they developed out of groups founded by former Nazis and Fascists who rejected democratization. They downplay their origins. TFD (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Political positions being reinstated once again

@Carlp941:. Could you remove your recent edit that reinserted the GOP's stated political position in the article? There's presently no consensus in the literature on where to place the GOP.

Shouldn't "far-right" also be included? KlayCax (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I am simply applying the consensus from the discussion "Poll: Should the article include a political position for the Republican Party in the infobox?"

From a general read of the discussion, there is a clear consensus to be to include the general position as "right wing", (as long as backed up by the relevant sources), but consensus is against the suggestion to include the full range of views held by the various parts of of the party in the infobox, in particular the suggestion of "far-right to centre-left"

So I don't see a reason to remove the position. I am including the position of "right wing" with a high quality academic and a high quality news source, both written by academics who are experts in political history, that specifically call the GOP a right wing party. I'd ask that any other reference meet this standard. If there is suddenly not consensus about the position of right wing, I guess we can open a poll about the specific position we want. Frankly, I think it's a bit much for three words in an infobox, but I'm open to it. I'd ask that we keep continue to keep my edits up during any discussion, they match the current consensus to the letter.

I don't disagree that far-right may be a relevant position to include, but I don't think your sources advance that position. None of them (i cant access the uchicago one, btw) say "The GOP is a far right party." They speak of factional infighting, caucus political positions, and positions of power for various far right members. Troubling trends, surely. But for me, I would need to see something from a reliable source that directly calls the GOP a far right party. On that note, would you please post the relevant text from the UChicago article? It is likely worth including that as a reference, Robert C Smith was an expert on racial politics in the US, and from my home state. :) Carlp941 (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

There's also several sources used earlier by Cortador that explicitly say the party's right-wing is a minority. So we have sources calling the party far-right, sources calling it right-wing, and sources saying the right-wing is a minority.

I think the problem here is straightforward: the consensus reached earlier was based on editor opinions, not on sources. So after it was passed, we had to sift through sources to find some that agreed. That's... not how consensus is supposed to work. And based on the whole body of sources here, I don't think academia agrees, either. I'm not saying to remove what's there right now, but I think we really need to consider if it actually reflects the scholarly consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 01:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you both leaving my edits up.

I don't think it was necessarily wrong to build consensus that way - given the staunch opposition to even including a political position. One thing at a time is a valid approach, even if in hindsight it was flawed.

I think you're right about what the problem is here, and I think the solution lies in narrowing what we want to consider as a relevent reliable source. I am very biased here, but I do like my standard of high quality academic or high quality news sources, written by experts in some field of politics and/or history that specifically call the GOP a center right/far right/right wing party. I would prefer the article be about the makeup of the party - its representives, its voters, its leaders. I would prefer to avoid news coverage about factional positioning, and would like sources that are more focused and contemplative about the party. Carlp941 (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The Manifesto Project Database is the most commonly used in the literature. So I used that, @Carlp941:. @Toa Nidhiki05:. The conclusions it draws are undoubtedly going to be controversial, though.

(It has historically labeled the Democratic Party a centrist to center-right party while labeling the Republicans - on a platform level - a "far-right" party). Using that for now. If that doesn't work, I'm not sure what else can be done.

Maybe V-DEM data on political parties? However, it makes similar conclusions. KlayCax (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah no, neither of those ones would fly. Ugh. We legitimately cannot group the Republicans with actual Nazis - that is something we just don’t have a consensus for. And on the Democratic side, that’s also misleading when the Democrats are the entirety of the American left. I also can't get your citation to work - what I loaded up (right/left position for the 2020 election) shows Republicans and Democrats as essentially exact opposites - Democrats past -20 on the bottom left, Republicans past +20 on the top right. When setting social issues as the 1st and economy as the 2nd, the GOP is -5/+10 and the Democrats are around -20 on both - again, unless I'm doing things wrong?

Keep in mind that American political parties don't function like European ones. Even if we go with "party platform" as the definer, American platforms are... essentially nothing. They aren't binding on candidates and don't generally amount to much overall. That's why I've suggested alternatives. Toa Nidhiki05 11:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Australia can be considered a big-tent of the Right Party where "party platform" means nothing and it is labelled Centre-right to Right-wing since most politicians fall at that range. Republican Party should at least be Right-wing as most of the politicians has links to the Christian right and Trumpism Mhaot (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I do think so too, even with the Liberals rightward shift, they are still left of the Republicans. Trump is much more authoritarian, has much more social-conservative views on LGBT, and has a much harsher economic and foreign policy. I would say removing centre-right would be the best idea. 59.102.22.11 (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the use of the Manifesto Project Database is great. However, does it use the term far-right? I don't have access to the dataset to check. I feel right-wing populism or Trumpism would be more accurate. BootsED (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

All I was able to find on it was numerical graphs, which is what I was referring to. There's no easy way to export them, either, but all the data seemed to indicate is both parties hold opposite views and occupy opposite positions.

UPDATE: Yeah, I'm looking at an over-time comparison now. GOP is at -25, Dems are at +28 or so on the right-left scale... no idea what this means, but it doesn't indicate any asymmetry between the parties. Toa Nidhiki05 14:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The point of keeping the label to 'right-wing' was to keep it broad and general. Much of the discussion in the past RfC made the point that labels more specific than that are likely to create further edit warring or may have WP:DUE or WP:NPOV issues. The infobox should keep it brief and loose - more specific discussion of the factional elements of the party can take place in the article body. — Czello ^(music) 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the right-wing position. The sources backing it up are pretty clear. Far-right should be reserved for parties such as the NSDAP in Nazi Germany, not the modern Republican Party. BootsED (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Support right-wing, with center-right and far-right factions, which are mentioned in the factions section. The Republican Party is affiliated with the right-wing ECR group, home to parties like Poland's Law and Justice. It's also affiliated with the Asia Pacific Democracy Union, home to parties like Japan's LDP which is a right-wing big-tent, with center-right and far-right factions. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Both of those are part of the IDU, which is center-right without qualification. It's a fairly pointless distinction. There is no actual faction of Nazi or fascist Republicans, which is what far-right would essentially mean, and our reliable sources generally agree that the party's right-wing is a minority, placing it as center-right or right-wing. Toa Nidhiki05 03:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Managed to get exports of the data from MARPOR. They're in this Google Drive. First is economy/social issues, second is right-left scale. At minimum I think this very clearly does not show that Republicans are far-right. Toa Nidhiki05 14:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't view the second one. I think you only linked to the first? BootsED (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh yep, it’s only showing the first. Here’s the other image. Toa Nidhiki05 16:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! This does show that the Republicans are right-wing and not center-right, but also not far right which I wouldn't even consider unless they were around 75. The Democrats are also center-left and under 25 and if the most recent data set was used to show 2024 I wouldn't doubt if Biden's election pushed them back up even more towards the center around 20 or so. BootsED (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, BootsED, how does this show them as right-wing but the Democrats as centrist? The scale looks like they're opposites to me - wouldn't that make Democrats left-wing, then? Toa Nidhiki05 21:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

According to the RILE score from the dataset, the 0 is pure centrism, while if you go up in the positive you're more right-wing and if you go down in the negative you're more left wing. Both parties are below a score of +/-50, so they're definitely not far-right or far-left. I assume the scale would go to +100 to -100 as we have a historical party, the State's Rights Party that is above +50. The table itself is not symmetrical but zoomed in, the y-axis at the top goes above 50 while below it does not. So the difference between the right and the left looks large, but if you look at the y-axis the Democrats are still closer to the center than the Republicans are.

I downloaded the dataset, and the Republicans as of 2020 are above 25 at 32.969, while the Democrats as of 2020 are just below -25 at -24.662. So obviously, the Republican Party per this dataset is definitely not "far-right" as they are still less than the 1948 segregationist State's Rights Party which was at 52.459; and they are definitely not equivalent to the Nazi Party which Wikipedia also states is "far-right." While it isn't in the dataset you shared, common sense would suggest the Nazi's would be well above +75. It would be disingenuous and a false equivalence to say that the Nazi's are a far-right party and that the Republicans are also a far-right party on both pages.

In that same vein, it would also be disingenuous and a false equivalence to say that the Green Party of the United States are a left-wing party and that the Democrats are also a left-wing party of the same sort. I believe the dataset you have should also list where the Green Party would fall on a left-right scale, and I would bet that they would be further left-wing than the Democrats at around the same place the Republicans are but on the left at around -30 to -40. Likewise, the Democratic Socialists of America are listed as left-wing to far-left, which if it is in the dataset, would most likely put them at someplace around -50 to -75.

So 0 to +/-25 would be centrist, +/-25 to +/-75 would be right-wing/left wing, and +/-75 to +/-100 would be far-right/far-left. Scores at the edges would be determined by what reliable sources describe them as. BootsED (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like both parties are on the line, which means both are in the center-right to right/center-left to left range, then. 32 is a lot closer to 25 than 75, after all. There's not really a huge difference between the two. Toa Nidhiki05 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Also Toa, your recent revert to a stable version also makes the error where the sources used for fiscal conservatism and social conservatism don't actually support what is being stated. Namely, the new fusionism source describes how Republicans have moved away from fiscal restraint and the other source describes the emergence of Christian nationalism within the base. I would support restoring what was previously there (so roll forwards?) as centrism, right-libertarianism and right-wing populism are accurate for the other factions. Social and fiscal both fall under Conservatism which is listed as a majority. I am leaning towards simply lumping anything that ends with "conservatism" under the conservatism label to avoid a massive list. BootsED (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead if you like - you seem to have a better handle on the changes. Toa Nidhiki05 21:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Right-wing" seems like a decent compromise pending some new consensus. The existing sources seemed sufficient to me, but I added another journal article just in case. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 could you please remove the first citation for center right? That source is about the LDP, I'd prefer to keep the references trimmed down to those about the Republican Party in particular. Overviews of center right parties broadly are fine too, but that particular article is really just about the LDP in Japan. The rest of the sources are fine, and I am okay leaving center-right to right-wing on as a political position. Carlp941 (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I can remove it, although I think it's useful here because it's comparing the LDP to other center-right parties. The GOP is in that grouping. But I suppose the other sources are sufficient. Toa Nidhiki05 19:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Toa, we should keep the current right-wing consensus and not add center-right. We have more recent academic sources specifically stating that the Party is no longer a center-right party. BootsED (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The amount of academic sources appears to be even, from what I can tell, and are equally recent (2019 vs 2020 isn't a major difference in time, really - it's still Trump-era). Is there a compelling reason to ignore what some sources say, but not others? It's not any more contradictory to say the Republican Party is center-right, but has shifted to the right in recent years, than it is to say the inverse of the Democratic Party. Toa Nidhiki05 13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

yeah, a difference of one year isn't enough for me to say "all academic sources say the GOP is right wing"

while the center right of the party is certainly shrinking, it is still enough for academic sources to note it when describing the position of the party.

lastly, given that we developed the consensus before consulting reliable sources, i am fine with a little flexibility on what the consensus is. Carlp941 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

A more recent academic source specifically states, "the Republicans changed from being a right of centre coalition of moderates and conservatives to an unambiguously right-wing party." Another source states "its populist ideas are carrying an already right-wing party even further right." If people want to say center-right, I'd be fine with it as long as it says "Center-right to right wing." Saying simply "center-right" would be inaccurate to the sources, and even to the body of the article itself where it states that right-wing populism is one of the dominant forces of the modern GOP, and that conservatism has lost considerable influence in recent years. BootsED (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

"Center right to right wing" is exactly what I added, yes.

Does anyone have a substantive objection to this? I've only seen people supporting the addition so far. Toa Nidhiki05 12:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Objection is that the moderates are almost non-existent for the GOP today. Even the Liberal Party of Australia, Conservative Party (UK) and Conservative Party of Canada is listed as Centre-right to Right-wing as those parties is roughly has half being moderates and the other half non-moderates which is not the case of the GOP. Plus there is other IDU Parties that are not doesn't have Centre-right as their position such as Likud in Israel listed as Right-wing and Fidesz in Hungary listed as Right-wing to far-right Mhaot (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Mhaot, your objection appears to be based entirely on your personal opinion and other pages rather than reliable sources. It is worth noting, however, that, according to the Washington Post, the centrist/center-right Republican Governance Coalition (42 members) and Main Street Caucus (67 members), as well as the center-right Republican Study Committee (174 members) vastly outnumber the right-wing/far-right Freedom Caucus (~33 members). Other sources previously given in this page indicate the right flank of the party is a minority. So your argument isn't just not grounded in reliable sources, it actually contradicts them.

If you don't have reliable sources to back up your claims, your claims can and should be disregarded Toa Nidhiki05 13:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Even the source from Northeastern mentioned that the Republican Study Committee has moved further from to the right from their original center-right position. As for the article from Washington Post, Republican Study Committee (RSC), it doesn't even mentioned RSC as Center-right but rather its membership crosses all spectrums from moderate to far-right factions for decision. Plus it mentions members can join multiple groups (Even MTG is in the RSC and was in the Freedom Caucus at the same time until she was expelled ). Mhaot (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

A party can be center-right, while being right of where it was before. Nothing you said is a rebuttal or actual substantive critique - it's all your own personal opinion. Toa Nidhiki05 12:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Can we stick to just right-wing, as the Republican Party is mainly right-wing, with the minority center-right and far-right factions balancing each other? This article has a footnote of sources after the sentence: "Right-wing populism is a dominant political faction of the GOP." There are other factions, but the right-wing populist/Trumpist faction is dominant. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to just stick with right-wing; as sources establish, the far-right doesn't actually balance (see: Washington Post's "Five Houses" analysis). We have a slew of reliable academic sources saying center-right, and comparatively none declaring the party to be fascist or Nazis (although some have called it radical right populist - which we already incorporate with right-wing populism). I see no reason to leave this information out, especially when the only arguments against seem to be personal opinions. Toa Nidhiki05 23:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Toa, I just checked your edit again and it appears I was mistaken! I definitely do not have any objections to center-right to right-wing. When adding it to the page, putting your sources behind "center-right" and the existing sources behind "right-wing" would probably be helpful, or we could also put it in one big combined note at the end. BootsED (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

All good! I like to put them referencing the exact claim, but if bundling them together would work that can be done as well! Just clarify which ones are for "right wing" and which are for "center-right" so readers know which is which. Toa Nidhiki05 18:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

My friend, I put those sources in the article. I would object to just "centre right" as well, much for the same reasons as you. To be clear, I prefer just "right wing" as the political position because I think the newest reliable sources back that claim. I was saying that I don't object to center right being added because there are reliable sources that attest to a center right existing within the party. I was kind of fence riding, to be honest. I just dont have a strong opinion on whether or not center right is added. My only strong opinion is that right wing be included.

I guess since there isn't consensus to add center right back to the position, I can live with that too. If there were high quality academic sources from 2020 onwards, specifically about the GOP (or the GOP as a major part of the analysis) calling them a "center right" or "center right to right wing" party, then i would think we should add it back. Does that seem reasonable? Carlp941 (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Carlp941, when the only argument against inclusion is personal opinion about things, what other pages say - and not anything about the quality of the sources themselves - I think it's vital we include it. And thus far, I haven't seen anyone give an actual reason these academic sources are wrong. I think it's very clear that if we're going to have a section on political position, it has to be "center-right to right-wing" - this is what academic sources clearly support, regardless of someone's personal opinions on the ideal positioning of parties. And moreover, we have recent reliable media sources saying the right-wing are a minority faction - those can't be ignored, either. I think it's abundantly clear academic sources support a "center-right to right-wing" position. Toa Nidhiki05 15:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the two sources you have below are good and merit inclusion. @BootsED what do you think? Carlp941 (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Both sources look good to me! BootsED (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

When can we include, then? Toa Nidhiki05 01:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any objections, so I trust your judgement here. I haven't seen any particularly strong arguments against adding center right with the stronger sources you've provided. Feel free to add it!itself. Carlp941 (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The first sources states: "Republican delegates are grouped at the conservative end of the spectrum" and then just mentions that "center-right Republicans" exist. That is way to weak to support the statement that the GOP is a centre-right to right-wing party. The second source by itself isn't strong enough. Cortador (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That's two sources you disagree with, but others disagree, and there's three or four others I included. That's not reason enough to hold up including reliably-sourced, academically-sourced content. Toa Nidhiki05 02:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Cooperman et al say that the Republicans include both conservatives and center-right, while the Democrats are center-left and liberals. It doesn't say where conservatives and liberals lie in the political spectrum.That's because its use of the terms center-right and center-left are contextually defined. We know they are referring to the ideological geography between liberals and conservatives. TFD (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

A lot of reliable sources quote the Republican party as far-right as well. Trump has policies that are routinely compared to Viktor Orban, who is the head of a right to far right party. He is overwhelmingly supported by Republicans. If you can find a non-USA source from a country without as much of a political bias (UK, Aus, Germany, France) that have more typical descriptions for centre-right, then you have something. I do agree within an American political spectrum, the Republicans are Centre-right, but had they been in a different country, they'd be considered far-right or right-wing. And I must reaffirm the fact the ECR is considered right-wing by most sources and the Republicans are affiliated with them. 59.102.22.11 (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Several additional sources, from 2021 on:

References

Oppose, political positions of the two major USA political parties are way too diverse for a simple label, that's what the ideology section is for. The compromise I'd accept is Right-wing, since that's the broadest accurate term for the party. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems most editors agree that position in the left-right spectrum should be used but disagree on what the specific terms mean. Can anyone tell me what the center of the spectrum is? How are UK conservatives and European Christian Democrats center-right, while U.S. Democrats are center-left, when the Democrats are to the right on all policy issues? And doesn't saying someone is right-wing without qualification mean they are fascist? After all, only extremists describe themselves as right-wing, while social democrats describe themselves as left wing and the U.S. Democratic Party doesn't. It just seems too nuanced and ambiguous to make an unqualified statement in the info-box.

Perhaps we should launch this as a Wikipedia-wide project where we can classify ideologies along the spectrum and provide a key to explain it to the readers.

TFD (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@TFD, political positions tends prioritise classifying on the local political spectrum. Afterall, most Non-Western Parties that are classified Socially Liberal Center Left is probably more conservative in practice than most Western Center-Right Parties like Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle. Of course, being mainstream don't automatically mean they are Center Left or Center Right by their country standards like Fidesz in Hungary (so that is why I wouldn't call GOP Center-Right at all for the same reasons). Mhaot (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is missing the trees for the forest, if that makes sense. I think trying to define our own spectrum is too big of a task, and introduces the editors' biases at a level I am uncomfortable with. I think we should just follow reliable sources. Carlp941 (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the reliable sources do not use the terminology consistently. That's probably because these terms are contextually defined and no one is trying to define the boundaries between center-right, center, center-left etc. in the same way that they identify boundaries between for example liberalism and socialism. TFD (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It's how reliable sources describe parties in their countries' political spectrum. Different countries have different political issues and cultures.

Example: Many non-Western countries (i.e. the Muslim world, many African and Asian countries) have economically left-leaning parties that take socially conservative stances (i.e. LGBT rights and separation of religion and state), but are still considered to be on the left because the population of those countries are often uniformly socially conservative on some issues.

Republican Party example: The Republican Party has usually been both more pro-business and pro-tariffs (the main exception was Reagan to younger Bush) than the Democratic Party, despite the fact that in most of the Western world, left-leaning parties are more in favor of protectionism. (I wrote the entire section on international trade for the Republican Party.) 2610:20:6B73:240:0:0:0:B096 (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The Republican Party has usually been both more pro-business and pro-tariffs (the main exception was Reagan to younger Bush) than the Democratic Party

This is an old myth promoted by the GOP. Us Americans can go down to Main Street in Anywhere, United States, and see the "pro-business" impact Republicans have had. Small farmers can tell the same story. The GOP supports big, multinational corprorations, and in fact, is likely the party that invented them, after breaking the backs of domestic labor and moving jobs overseas. Every small business in America can tell you that the GOP does not have their best interest in mind. Just ask a farmer.[1] Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

In most countries, political parties avoid U.S. wedge issues such as abortion, capital punishment, same sex marriage, trans-gender rights, etc. because they are not traditionally left-right issues. Instead, they have experts decide them or have free votes in parliament. Over time, what was once considered shocking, such as interracial marriage, becomes widely accepted.

The U.S. is an outlier because since the two parties have similar underlying ideologies, they appeal to wedge issues and negative campaigning for market differentiation. TFD (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Before we go down the politics rabbit hole, in regards to the center-right and right-wing position for the Republican Party, I am in favor of it as Toa has found several high-quality sources that describe the Republican Party as center-right while we have newer sources that describe how the party has moved into being a solidly right-wing party with severely weakened center and moderate aspects. This is what the sources say, not what our own editor's personal opinions and beliefs say. This is the reason I support putting center-right to right-wing for the Republican Party at this time.

Here is what we would put in as the position to refresh everyone's memories:

Center right to right-wing

References

BootsED (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The Republican Party could have been described as center-right before the Trump era (2016-present). Per the last source (May 29, 2023): "In the United States, we have seen a shift in ideology in the Republican Party over the past 10–15 years. The ideology, which Trump presents, is completely different from that of John McCain or Mitt Romney, the two Republican presidential candidates before him. Under McCain and Romney, conservatism meant upholding conservative values in society, supporting little state intervention, being pro-business, free trade, and interventionalist. Being a Bush, Romney, or McCain Republican did not mean to decry Washington as corrupt, to vilify minorities as scapegoats, and to engage in a protectionist economic agenda. Yet, in the 2020s, xenophobia, anti-elitism, and protectionism are the buzzwords of what it means to be conservative (Lewis 2021)." JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

All but one of the sources for center-right come from after 2016 (and the other is from 2015). Your argument isn’t compelling. Toa Nidhiki05 14:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there are center-right Republicans in the party, but they are such a small minority now (half a dozen?) that it might be undue to say the GOP is still center-right. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources seem to say otherwise though - either the entirety or parts of 3 of the 4 major House GOP factions are center-right, according to sources - on top of the half-dozen or so identifying the party itself as such. Toa Nidhiki05 22:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Can we get actual, quantifiable numbers? Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Five Families from Washington Post maps out the causes fairly definitively.

• Problem Solvers (centrist) - 29 members
• Freedom Caucus (right-wing to far-right) - 33 members
• Republican Governance Group (centrist to center-right) - 42 members
• Republican Main Street Caucus (centrist) - 67 members
• Republican Study Committee (center-right to right-wing) - 173 members

The brunt of the party aligns with the Study Committee, which conveniently fits what the party labeling proposal is (center-right to far-right). Twice as many are aligned with the RMSC as the Freedom Caucus, but the Freedom Caucus outnumbers the Problem Solvers. This, combined with our academic sources, presents a fairly consistent picture imo. Toa Nidhiki05 01:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Bush supporters used push-polls to circulate the false rumor that McCain fathered a black baby and used Roger Stone (of all people) to intimidate vote counters during the recount. Reagan used the racist stereotype of the welfare queen while George H.W. Bush (who hired Lee Atwater) used Willie Horton. There's this tendency, since Nixon, to see the current U.S. president and his predecessors as great statesmen. TFD (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

What does this have to do with center-right versus right-wing? BootsED (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

JohnAdams1800 argued that the reason the description of Republicans as center right is no longer valid is that earlier Republicans among other things did not decry racial minorities. TFD (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

For example, the GOP censures their own members that dared to investigate January 6 riots, that would hardly to be a moderate party

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/gop-censures-liz-cheney-and-adam-kinzinger-for-participation-in-jan-6-investigation Mhaot (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

That says nothing about a political position. Can you please argue based off reliable sources, and not your opinion? Toa Nidhiki05 00:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I can’t speak to the above, but are we able to draw inferences from the five families data to show how many support enforcing the rule of law? And can you compare it to the number of GOP who took stands against Nixon’s crimes and asked him to step down? The reason I posit this is because it could show that the GOP has moved from the center to the right. GOP members have appeared to undermine the rule of law as much as possible since 2016, with opposition to federal law enforcement at many different levels, resulting in what is seen as a culture of corruption and impunity. This could undermine your argument, based on a straight reading of factional memberships, and could in fact present an entirely different perspective that portrays the party far to the right of center. I’m showing this as a counterexample to your appeal to caucus membership. So two things: did GOP members during the Nixon admin overwhelmingly support Nixon stepping down and admit, in the majority, that a member of their party committed sanctionable acts? If they did, then it can be shown that when it came to Trump, the opposite was true. Most of the GOP did not support the same views they previously had about Nixon, showing a decline in the respect for the rule of law and a favoritism towards might makes right and unlimited executive power out of sync with the separation and balance of powers; this is a touchstone of the far right. If the GOP were, on the other hand, in the center, we would see support for the rule of law and a overall castigation of GOP members for sanctionable behavior. We see this, for example, in the Democratic Party, who are routinely fodder for comedians because they are often criticized or step down for the most trivial reasons imaginable, while their colleagues on the right rarely do the same. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It just shows they are more partisan as with the Clinton impeachment. In fact most Republicans supported Nixon for more than two years after the Watergate break-in and only turned once overwhelming evidence was presented. TFD (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Isolationism and non-interventionism

In the lead section, the article says the GOP "supports isolationism and promotes non-interventionism". That seems like a generalization, as there is a pretty substantial hawkish wing of the Republican Party, as the article itself discusses below. I think this should be changed? User136596 (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s absolutely a generalization, and a poor one at that. It’s certainly not an even split, like the article currently implies. Toa Nidhiki05 03:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Support removing that sentence, as the Republican Party is a big-tent and there is a divide among its members, particularly Congress--states can't conduct foreign policy. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The GOP has shifted greatly towards isolationism and non-interventionism, as evidenced by the holdup of Ukraine aid and Trump and his allies frequent questioning of the NATO alliance. There are many sources as that document this shift. Mitch McConnell publicly called out isolationist Republicans in a NYT op-ed and said he would make fighting them one of his main goals of his remaining time as speaker. So there definitely is a split. BootsED (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It has shifted, but that also infers it was not always the case, which should probably be taken into consideration. I believe it would be more accurate to say something like "According to _____ the GOP began shifting/shifted to "support isolationism and promotion of non-interventionism" (at such an such time for such and such reasons)..." or something along those lines... Cheers. DN (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Need to update lead. It ignores the radical party changes.

The party isn't what it used to be. That's why I added to the lead, based on content in the body. No original research. It's all in the body. Trump isn't even mentioned in the lead, even though he controls everything and is eliminating anyone not loyal to him.

Here's what I added, and what was then deleted:

The election of Donald Trump in 2016 split the party into pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions. Under the influence of Trump's MAGA movement and Trumpism, the party is completely dominated by right-wing populism, neo-nationalism, national conservatism, and the far-right Freedom Caucus.

My edit summary:

"The lead currently focuses on the party's history, with little mention of the party now. It is now controlled by right-wing populists, with Trump as their leader. This is straight from the body.

@Toa Nidhiki05: reverted with this edit summary:

This is patently incorrect, and contradicted by the article and reliable sourcing. The Freedom Caucus is the smallest grouping of the House Republicans, not the largest.

So there is a disagreement about the Freedom Caucus. Its size was never mentioned, so size is a straw man argument. We can discuss it anyway.

Its article says this in the lead: "The caucus was formed in January 2015 by a group of conservatives and Tea Party movement members, with the aim of pushing the Republican leadership to the right." It succeeded bigly!

It happens to control who is the Speaker of the House. Their numbers belie their influence and power, and, as they are Trump loyalists, they will only get more power.

I just noticed another thing that could be altered: change "completely dominated" to "dominated". Let's discuss it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Remove - No value to the article, looks like POV pushing, and I agree with Toa Nidhiki05's reasoning. PackMecEng (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • You do realize the irony of a personal attack and assumption of bad faith like "looks like POV pushing" coming from you, of all people? Deletionism and whitewashing are forms of POV pushing, so don't do it. Step back and reevaluate what's happening here. The need for an updating of the lead was expressed and I tried to do that. The lead totally ignores the modern GOP as it is now, so the article violates WP:LEAD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

    You have an incorrect perspective on the situation. Hopefully this helps you see that. PackMecEng (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

    I would love to. In what way has this article misinformed me? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Remove - For the reasons above in other discussions. The depiction of factions and party control is utterly out of whack with what reliable sources and academic sources say. And it is true - the Freedom Caucus is the smallest caucus, not the largest, and outnumbered by two moderate caucuses. Simply put: it's not a good change. We've already adjusted the lead to mention shifts in the party. Toa Nidhiki05 18:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • It's not big deal if we leave out the Freedom Caucus. All of it is straight out of the body of the article where there are many sources. Look at the Right-wing populists section. It's all there, including Right-wing populism, Trumpism, Radical right (United States), National conservatism, and Freedom Caucus. You don't like that I based what I wrote on the existing content? That's odd. Your quibble isn't with me, but the creators of the article and RS. Take it up with them.

There is nothing in this that is my POV. It's all from the article. It's from RS. The lead does need to be brought up-to-date. Feel free to propose a different version. I'm totally open to other ways of doing this. It just needs to be done.

You mention "We've already adjusted the lead to mention shifts in the party." I don't see it. Trump, MAGA, and Trumpism aren't even named, and they ARE the GOP now. None of the moderate GOP dare oppose them or speak out. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Remove The party division is exaggerated. The party has never been monolithic and nominations have usually been contested. Trump's Republican opponents mostly decided to back his presidency. The rest of it is unsourced and reads like nightly lectures from pro-Biden talk show hosts. TFD (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The rest of the refs are in the body. They can be included. As I wrote, it's all in the body. Feel free to write an alternate version that covers the topic of the party as it is now. That is largely ignored in the lead, which gives the old version of the party too much weight. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the party has changed and the lead could better reflect that, but I don't think your changes did that. There is no GOP split, just factional infighting typical of a large political party that is lurching to the right. Remove. Carlp941 (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Carlp941: Thanks for taking this seriously. A newer version is below. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove Not the place for POV pushing, and patently incorrect anyways. Mitt Romney is still a senator and he's clearly not any of those things. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@HadesTTW: Drop the assumptions of bad faith and personal attack. The content is from the body, so the POV pushing is from the article, not from me. You can discuss your objections with the creators of this article, as I copied what they wrote. Your objection is with them and the sources. A newer version is below. BTW, Romney no longer has any influence. Only MAGA get to control anything in the party. The GOP of my youth and my family is no more. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

At this point you've accused almost everyone here - none of which agree with your changes - of bad faith. It's time to stop that. Toa Nidhiki05 20:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No, you've got it backwards. You have assumed I was the one acting in bad faith. I never said any of you were acting in bad faith, so strike that. I said you were personally attacking me by saying I was POV pushing. Don't deny it.

You haven't examined what I wrote and compared it with the content in the body from which I quoted it. That's pretty poor behavior. You should take this seriously and examine before you reply. Now go to the new section and get serious. The quotes are even more exact. Your objections are with the article, not me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

When multiple people told you your edit feels like POV pushing, your response was to lash out at them angrily rather than consider why they think that. Speaks volumes to me, at least. Toa Nidhiki05 20:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are you still on this thread? The new thread is much better and clearer.

I understand what you're saying, but there's another thing to factor in. We are not acting in a vacuum here. The accusation of "POV pushing" is not new. It came from a years-long history that they brought to this thread. Some of these people habitually attack me, no matter what or where. Then here, when they arrived out of the blue and immediately attacked me, and then showed clear evidence that they had not fully read what I had written, or actually fact-checked by comparing what I had written with what this article actually says (I was quoting it!), that shows they were just POV pushing against me. Their POV was revealed by the way they initially (and continually) responded. It just shows a shoddy and uncollaborative spirit. The POV was quoted and sourced from the body of the article, not from me.

When someone writes something, at least see if what they say is true, instead of labeling them a "POV pusher" with no evidence. That is a personal attack. Right? If I started my first response to a thread of yours by ignoring the details of what you wrote and called you a "POV pusher", you'd be pretty pissed off and drag me to ANI. Admit it.

I realize that your mind is made up, so there is no point in me repeating myself. You will likely not check the new thread to see that every part of it is exact quotes from the body of this article. You will continue to blame me, rather than this article. If you have any interest in maintaining your credibility, you will get specific, go to the next thread, and point out, with exact quotes, where I have gone wrong. What is wrong with what I wrote in the new thread? I challenge you to answer that. I doubt you'll do it, because you have likely not even read what I write there: "The only words of mine are "the party is characterized by", which is faithful to the content and references." Everything there fulfills our guidelines for a lead. I literally quote from the body, and I reproduce that relevant part of the body, so it's easy to compare.

(I'll let you in on a secret. There is actually ONE other word (a synonym) that is mine. I challenge you to find it. Tell me in the next thread.)

Let's end this thread here. Reply there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

References

New version for lead, with the refs

Since the version above was rejected with personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith by editors who would not bother to check that what I had written was taken directly from the article, I have added the refs and rearranged it a bit so it flows better. There was also objection to the mention of the Freedom Caucus, so that has been left out.

The only words of mine are "the party is characterized by", which is faithful to the content and references:

• The election of Donald Trump in 2016 split the party into pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions. Under the influence of Trump's MAGA movement and right-wing populism, a dominant political faction of the GOP, the party is characterized by national conservatism, neo-nationalism, and Trumpism, which have been described as the American political variant of the far-right.

That is QUOTED from the following REPRODUCED content in the section Right-wing populists. That is what is new to the party and not mentioned in the lead. You can compare (which no one did before!) and see that I have quoted EXACTLY and used the EXACT same refs. The first sentence above is found after the rest, but it makes a much better introduction, so I have placed it first above:

Right-wing populism is a dominant political faction of the GOP. Sometimes referred to as the MAGA or "America First" movement, Republican populists have been described as consisting of a range of right-wing ideologies including but not limited to right-wing populism, national conservatism, neo-nationalism, and Trumpism. They have been described as the American political variant of the far-right.

The election of Trump in 2016 split the party into pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions.

It would be nice to see someone take this seriously and not automatically, without checking, just start attacking and assuming bad faith again, without any evidence.

I have no objection to suggested improvements, so feel free to propose alternate versions. Just do something, because the existing lead could have been written in 2013. What has happened since then is not covered in the lead. If it's there, it is disguised, and that isn't honest writing. The body is honest. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There was no need to make a new section for this. I still object to the changes. Directly previous discussions have yielded a consensus that neither academia nor reliable sources define a dominant faction. They have rejected defining as far-right as both undue and not supported by reliable academic sourcing. The discussion above, which you evidently abandoned for this one, also showed editors strongly reject your binary pro/anti-Trump definition. Toa Nidhiki05 20:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, you fail to examine what is written and see I have quoted exactly, with the refs, from the body. If you disagree, then revise the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

So far you have received only opposition, dominating the discussion is unlikely to be productive here. Why the haste? Give editors time to think and respond, please. SmolBrane (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I would love to see a reasoned response, instead of the attacking without examination. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think what you have written is great and I would strongly support it being in the lead. It's objectively true that Trump is the party's central figure, and the lead should definitely state this. And it should obviously state that the party is "centre-right to far-right", because of the House Freedom Caucus, among so much else. It's exhausting having to prove something so obvious and merited by academia. Dhantegge (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

References