Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Seeking a consensus

I'm proposing to change "loosening gun laws" to a) "protecting gun rights", because the first phrase more sounds like POV pushing, since even progressive Vox calls it "protecting gun rights". b) either to "opposing restrictions on gun possession and sales" https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/5/28/23145600/uvalde-school-shooting-republicans-defend-gun-rights-nra-convention Udehbwuh (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

To me, as a non-American, "gun rights" sounds extremely POV. Remeber that this is a global encyclopaedia. "Loosening gun laws" just sounds like sloppy language. Maybe you need to be a lot more specific with what you mean. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It's two different things. GOP wants to loosen existing gun laws, and it also wants to protect a particular view of the 2nd Amendment. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to the headline? The subject of the citation doesn't seem to be about the republican party as much as the NRA, Ted Cruz and Trump, however, in the paragraph right above the section titled "Controversy over the gathering is the latest to hit the NRA" it says...

• "In 2020, a study in the Journal of Public Economics found that state-level responses following mass shootings heavily tilted toward loosening, not tightening, gun regulations. As the authors wrote: “In states with Republican-controlled legislatures, a mass shooting roughly doubles the number of laws enacted that loosen gun restrictions in the year following the incident.

DN (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"loosening, not tightening, gun regulations" I have read news articles about the topic in Daily Kos for years. So what? Mass shootings are also connected to temporarily increases in the sales of firearms. Dimadick (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove "Centrism" from the ideology list?

It is no secret that the modern Republican Party is rapidly abandoning centrism as an ideology--even the few remaining moderate Republicans are far more neoconservative than centrist. In light of this, I am seeking consensus to remove centrism from the ideology list. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I think there are still centrist Republicans, although I agree they are rapidly leaving the party and are much reduced in influence. Potentially moving them down the list to denote their decreased influence could be warranted assuming it could be backed up with RS? BootsED (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems logical. DN (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This non-American says that, by global standards, NO Republican person or policy could be considered a centrist. Democrats get closer, but a lot of them a bit far to the right too. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Centrist should be retained. It may not be a part of the party that gets much press these days but I don't see evidence that it simply doesn't exist any more than "centrist" Democrats don't exist. Springee (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

TFD makes a very salient point (below). "Moderate" would seem a more appropriate term. The 2019 citation in the info box refers to Republican Main Street Partnership. The website which lists current caucus members can also be found here.

According to sources the partnership was dissolved in 2019 and reformed in 2021.

I understand we say what RS says, but this citation about RMSP caucus members and "moderates" seems to be given UNDUE weight as it doesn't really discuss "the moderate faction of the GOP" other than the demise of RMSP, unless I missed it somewhere. Am I overlooking some expertise in the opinion of the author, Susan Davis?

I realize my own personal observations here are OR/SYNTH, but I must point out that "moderate" RMSP members (former and current) have also sometimes propagated, enabled or downplayed far-right/conspiratorial rhetoric and tendencies, such as Elise Stefanik, Roger Marshall and Guy Reschenthaler.

I would also note that some of the reps listed on the Republican Main Street Partnership wiki page are no longer in office, as well as the fact that a number of them initially refused to certify the 2020 election results, such as Dan Meuser and Bill Johnson (Ohio politician), who recently resigned. No offense to any editors working on that page, their work is much appreciated.

The number of Republicans that came to be known as the Sedition Caucus was 147, and then only 35 out of 211 republicans voted to approve legislation to establish the January 6, 2021 commission to examine the event in which some of them came face to face with a violent mob and still continued to double down...

"The votes to reject the election results have become a badge of honor within the party, in some cases even a requirement for advancement, as doubts about the election have come to define what it means to be a Trump Republican. The most far-reaching of Mr. Trump’s ploys to overturn his defeat, the objections to the Electoral College results by so many House Republicans did more than any lawsuit, speech or rally to engrave in party orthodoxy the myth of a stolen election. Their actions that day legitimized Mr. Trump’s refusal to concede, gave new life to his claims of conspiracy and fraud and lent institutional weight to doubts about the central ritual of American democracy." NYT 2022...

So, while we must still acknowledge the history of the moderate faction some changes need to be made. Moderates were on shaky ground over 10 years ago, and most experts seem to agree they have only diminished. If we are to keep asserting any claim that moderates still constitute any significance in the current "post-Bush" GOP party dynamic we need other/better sources, otherwise it seems like it needs to be be removed from prominence in the infobox.

• Peter Plympton Smith via NYT 2022 Over the last 30 years, the Republican Party has effectively eliminated its moderate and liberal voices as well as the conservative voices that put country over party. The consequences of this takeover by an increasingly right-wing faction include the threats to democracy that have become increasingly prominent since the Jan. 6 riots... There is little room left in the G.O.P. for any disagreement."
• Glenn C. Altschuler via The Hill 2022 "As the Republican National Committee voted to censure Cheney and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) for voting to impeach President Trump and joining the House Select Committee investigating the assault on the U.S. Capitol, RNC chair Ronna McDaniel maintained, “Disagreement in our party is welcome. It makes us great. We can have a big tent." In practice, however, Reagan’s 11th Commandment — “Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican” — is a dead letter. Since the 1980s, the Republican and Democratic parties have become more ideologically homogeneous. But partisan polarization has been asymmetrical."
• Heather Cox Richardson via PBS 2023 "Yes. But let’s start with what you just said, the idea that for the speaker of the house, who is a Republican, to work with Democrats who, of course, represent their constituents, to keep the government open is somehow something that makes him in his own conference be unpopular. That is completely antithetical to the way the government was always supposed to work. So, from the beginning, we’re in a really unusual moment. One of the things that I study, of course, is what’s happened to the Republican Party. And one of the things I like to emphasize is this is not your mother’s Republican Party. It has become an extremist faction that has within its goals to get rid of the kind of government under which we have lived since 1933."
• Reihan Salam via Foreign Affairs 2012 "After the Republicans gave in to Democratic and popular demands that the payroll tax cut be extended, Obama experienced an immediate surge in his approval ratings. Conservative Republicans and their Tea Party supporters were chastened by this defeat, and the Tea Party’s grip on the GOP shows some signs of loosening. But moderate Republicanism will not return as a bonafide movement anytime soon, despite the efforts of right-of-center public intellectuals such as David Frum and David Brooks (commentator)..."There is no doubt that a reliance on antigovernment rhetoric has created a troubling vacuum at the heart of the conservative project. The Tea Party movement and its rejectionism now define public perceptions of the post-Bush Republican Party. Moderate Republicans may no longer exist, but their legacy persists, and conservative Republicans will need to recapture the moderates’ creativity and problem-solving impulses if they ever hope to take power, hold on to it, and govern effectively."

Cheers. DN (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples I brought this up last year (see here). The issue with the current sourcing is that the one source in the side bar talks about how the moderate faction has broken down. The "Moderate Republicans" section only mentions that moderate Republicans generally exist, and names a few. There's no mention of them even qualifying as a faction. Considering the rightward shift that the GOP has done in recent years, I think it's appropriate to question whether they still exist as an actual action/party wing. Cortador (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The Republican Party is a big tent party in the American two party system. Same as the Democratic Party. We should leave centrist in the inbox as it is definitely a faction as outlined in the article. Completely Random Guy (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Unless reliable sources say that the centrist faction of the party has ceased to exist, there is nothing to discuss. It needs to stay in. MonMothma (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I want to amend my previous comment. I don't care whether we include centrism or moderate Republicanism in the ideology list as long as one of them is included. MonMothma (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Moderate Republicanism isn't centrism by any standard other than what some commentators within the USA might say. The rest of the world sees it as well to the right of centre. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Political articles use the right/left spectrum of that country, not the average of the western world. Also the rest of the world is the not the west. PackMecEng (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

A big tent party, or catch-all party, is a term used in reference to a political party having members covering a broad spectrum of beliefs. What sources say this about the current Republican Party? DN (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove. Centrism isn't an ideology, it's a position in the political spectrum. That can vary depending on where left and right happen to be. TFD (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Possibly undue for mention in the lead

At the bottom of the lead it says..."The Republican Party is a member of the International Democracy Union, an international alliance of center-right parties." I don't see much about it at all in the body, let alone sources to warrant putting it in the lead. Am I missing something here? Cheers. DN (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It belongs in the info-box because it is an international affiliation. But it's not a major part of the story of the party. TFD (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• We could probably find sources for it, but without truly sterling sources it seems hard to argue that it belongs in the lead, yeah. A quick search finds basically no coverage of its membership at all. Not only are the current sources in the lead passing mentions, they don't actually say that the Republican Party is a member (they're just about speeches Republican figures gave there - actually it looks like they're both about the same speech?); the only source we have for their membership is the IDP website itself, which isn't going to give it enough weight for the lead in an article on a subject this high-profile. --Aquillion (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. A primary source alone isn't good here. Cortador (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It's mentioned in an article in the Jerusalem Post.[1] It's standard for party info-boxes to provide information about international affiliations. TFD (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

No objection here. DN (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Can we get a citation or at least some proof here?

Why is "Republicans support overturning same sex marriage" on the page? This is not on the party platform, nor are ANY party officials, leaders calling for this.

A more fair, accurate and unbiased approach here is "Most Republicans support traditional definitions of marriage" instead of acting like overturning Obergefell v. Hodges is somehow part of the GOP policy agenda.

Even going way back to 2016, Trump endorsed gay marriage https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-president-elect-donald-trump-sex-marriage-settled/story?id=43513067

55% of Republicans support gay marriage https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004629612/a-record-number-of-americans-including-republicans-support-same-sex-marriage

Every single front-runner supports keeping the status quo of marriage, Ron Desantis : https://floridapolitics.com/archives/634459-gay-marriage-desantis/

Nikki Haley : https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/livefeeds/nikki-haley-disputes-that-she-opposes-gay-marriage/

This just makes no sense. How does this stuff make it to the page? Overturning 2015 supreme court ruling has never, will never and is not on the GOP agenda at all. Sufficient half (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Sufficient half, I don't see "Republicans support overturning same sex marriage" anywhere on this page. What I do see in #LGBT issues includes The 2016 GOP Platform defined marriage as "natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman," and condemned the Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriages. The 2020 platform retained the 2016 language against same-sex marriage. So yes, it was in the GOP's most recent platform. If you're looking for "party officials, leaders" calling for the end of same sex marriage, take a look at the past statements of the current Speaker of the House. Clarence Thomas has called for overturning Obergefell. And "traditional definitions of marriage" is a biased framing straight from Republican talking points. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

So you don’t see “Republicans support overturning same sex marriage” on the page yet the page says “ overturning the legality of same-sex marriage” is party of the GOP agenda … I literally copied and pasted that. and yes, you even proved my point. The GOP platform supported the traditional definition of marriage, not overturning the Supreme Court decision. Trump clearly endorsed gay marriage in 2016z

funny how republicans supporting traditional definitions of marriage is “straight from the GOP talking points” yet the straight up lie that Republicans are working to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges isn’t from Democratic fear mongering tactics? This is absolutely ridiculous.

a clear majority- in poll after poll- of Republicans support gay marriage. It’s a settled issue.

Every single Republican front runner supported gay marriage as settled law. Every. Single. One.

but I guess wiki is deciding to live in fantasy land where Republicans are overturning Obergefell v. Hodges … even though there isn’t citation because it’s not happening and nobody is talking about this except for wiki lol. Oh, and a stupid quote by Clarence. 50.93.152.6 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The same-sex marriage bills was not supported by most GOP congresspeople and most GOP senators. I don't see where you are getting this image of a gay marriage-friendly GOP from. What individual people like Trump state about gay marriage doesn't matter - that can go into the article on Trump. There, you can also find out that Trump has no coherent position on gay marriage, and that you misrepresented his position here. Cortador (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I will discuss certain points you make, which are off-topic- but keep in mind this is strictly about the falsehood on the page about overturning gay marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, and how the page makes the reader believe this is one of the prominent goals of the party (its the fourth "goal" mentioned)

"What individual people like Trump state about gay marriage doesn't matter" What the standard bearer of the party believes is relevant to the national party beliefs section. Hence why Trump is mentioned on this page several times. I provided citations for every single Republican front runner for 2024 and their positions on gay marriage. All of which have agreed gay marriage is settled and will not be revisted.

"Where do you get the Republicans are gay friendly" Never said that. I care about the reader getting correct information about party goals.

From Politico "In interviews with Republican operatives, former Trump administration officials, and conservative leaders, there is a widespread acceptance that debate over marriage equality is settled. There is no serious discussion about trying to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges"https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/16/republicans-gay-marriage-wars-505041

The most recently conducted poll- that took 7 years to complete- from 2016 to 2023, was released in October (so three months ago) shows that since 2016 Republican support for gay marriage rose from 40% to 55%, now a clear majority and is only increasing. Predictions show 60% Republican support for gay marriage by 2026.

NPR gallup records 55% Republican support for gay marriagehttps://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004629612/a-record-number-of-americans-including-republicans-support-same-sex-marriage

The study I mentioned showing 55% Republican support also in a separate poll:https://www.statista.com/statistics/1249216/support-for-same-sex-marriage-in-the-united-states-by-political-party/

CNN lays out what Republicans are aiming for in 2024 agenda- Gay marriage is talked about no where https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/02/politics/republicans-2024-agenda-what-matters/index.html

"ISideWith" Which tracks the official stance of politicians, even notes Donald Trump was the first Republican presidential candidate to support gay marriage https://www.isidewith.com/candidates/donald-trump/policies/social/gay-marriage

The idea that reversing gay marriage is somehow even remotely on the GOP agenda now- or in the future- is an outright lie. That's why it lacks citations. Sufficient half (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You have dropped one citation for Trump. One citation is insufficient, as Trump's position on gay marriage isn't coherent. In the same year where Trump stated that he is fine with gay marriage, he also attacked it (see here). In the same year, the GOP platform (see here) stated that they "condemn the Supreme Court's lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges". They used the same platform for 2020. You don't need a primary source (the platform) either; there's sources reporting on that. So Trump said we wanted to overturn marriage, then didn't, then ran with a platform that said the GOP did, the said he didn't, and then ran again with the same platform. There's also sources that point that out (see here) i.e. that the party platform doesn't line up with some stuff Trump said. Cortador (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

To be safe, moving forward I will provide two citations for every point I'm making. Although, one citations is better than a whole swath of paragraphs having absolutely none (which is the case on this article, especially the reversing gay marriage lie on the page) . And there is zero proof, citations, articles, party officials or ANY iota of evidence that overturning Obergefell v. Hodges and abolishing gay marriage being part of the Republican agenda moving forward into 2024 and beyond- in fact the opposite is occuring where an official LGBT arm of the Republican party was created in 2022, partnering with the Log Cabin Republicans https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rnc-announces-pride-coalition-partnership-with-log-cabin-republicans-ahead-of-midterms

Second citation, but this one the RNC defended its decision and rejected their conservative base https://www.businessinsider.com/rnc-defends-ronna-mcdaniel-amid-calls-to-step-down-over-lgbtq-outreach-2021-11

Like I explained above with multiple citations, a clear majority of Republicans support gay marriage now. With 2016-2023 trends continuing, will reach 60% in two years.

and the 2022 marriage bill you mentioned, the GOP dropped official opposition to gay marriage and instead told members to vote their conscience.. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3566616-republicans-show-political-evolution-with-same-sex-marriage-vote/

https://www.axios.com/2022/07/19/gop-marriage-equality-lgbtq-rights

Virtually all news pundits discussed the political evolution of gay marriage for Republicans, and there is zero effort in congress or anywhere to reverse gay marriage. I'm not sure why you are supporting such a falsehood.

If anything a compromise could read "While the Republican party has some in its base that wish to reverse gay marriage, there are no current party efforts to reverse Obergefell v. Hodges and a majority of Republicans now support gay marriage"

This reflects current cultural changes in a political environment that is rapidly changing. It's also true to the reader. Sufficient half (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

None of that changes that the party has now, for the third time in a row, used a platform that opposes gay marriage explicitly- and yet you claimed that this was "not on the party platform" in your very first comment. You are free to try and get consensus for whatever change you want to make here, of course. Cortador (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"a clear majority of Republicans support gay marriage now... "If anything a compromise could read "While the Republican party has some in its base that wish to reverse gay marriage, there are no current party efforts to reverse Obergefell v. Hodges and a majority of Republicans now support gay marriage"...

I wouldn't be against adding 2022 voter opinion polls to that effect (if they are DUE), but voters are the extent of it. The majority of representatives in congress do not seem to agree with gay marriage.

• "During this year’s Pride Month, many prominent Republicans have expressed criticism of celebrations and in some cases resurfaced opposition to same-sex marriage." WaPo 2023
• "The group includes moderates and senators known for crossing party lines, a few who are retiring and some who had already broken with their party to support same-sex marriage. Still, the vast majority of House and Senate Republicans opposed the bill, and finding enough G.O.P. senators to pass it was not easy. In the end, supporters won over more than the 10 Republicans needed to break a filibuster." NYT 2022
• "When Gallup began tracking the issue in 1996, support was at about 27 percent, with 68 percent opposed. As of May, however, 71 percent supported same-sex marriage with just 28 percent opposed (1 percent had no opinion). Fivethirtyeight 2022 & similar report by NBC News 2022
• (Current Speaker of the House Mike Johnson) "Last year, Johnson introduced legislation that has been compared to Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law, and he continues to push to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015." NYT 2023 op-ed by Jamelle Bouie

DN (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding Reactionism to the Factions section of Ideology

Hi, I'm sort of new to Wikipedia editing so please excuse my lack of knowledge concerning procedure. I'd like to add the text I've pasted below to the factions section of the ideology thingy. I spent a while researching and found four decent sources. Of those four, the New Yorker, the Atlantic and the New York Times are already used in the Ideology section, for Right-wing Populism and Christian Right respectively, so I'd assume they are acceptable sources?

| Reactionism

Right as I was about to commit the change, I noticed the "-- Do not change without consensus at talk page. --", so I came over here. How do I achieve this consensus? I don't know how these procedures work, sorry. Carrot Powder (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! One of the reasons for that note, aside from WP:CONSENSUS is WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, among others. I am unfamiliar with any "reactionary faction" being listed on the article page, but that's not to say it doesn't exist. Please give editors here some time to look at the sources. There will need to be notable precedent for inclusion of this in the ideology section. Please be patient and utilize the WP:TEAHOUSE to find specific answers to your questions and other editors with more time to help guide new users like yourself. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Your first source, which incidentally does not meet Wikipedia policy for inclusion since it's an opinion piece by a non-expert, does not say the Republican Party has a reactionary faction. It says the party is reactionary.

Factions are organized groups within parties. Can you name the leaders of the reactionary faction, what they call themselves, when they were founded, what documents they issued and how many members they have? If you can't, it's not a faction. TFD (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that Carrot Powder (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Removal of content in Immigration section

@Springee @Muboshgu Please explain what you deem undue about mentioning GRCT in the article. WP:DUE asked that articles "should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects". The fact that a significant amount of Republicans support the GRCT isn't a minority view, it is backed up by a plethora of reliable sources. In fact, I haven't seen any RS that deny this, or other viewpoints on the GOP's relationship with GRCT. If you think these exist in a quantify sufficient to justify removal under WP:DUE, please provide them.

Springee, since you mention that this information shouldn't be in that section, feel free to let me know where you think it should be included. Muboshgu, you claimed this also constitutes recentism; the border wall idea is from 2015 and has persistent for almost a decade, it's not recent. GRCT support on the GOP stems from at least 2021 and isn't breaking news. Recentism is also an issue with articles, and this article doesn't have a general issue with that. I also don't believe that this surge in support for a formerly fringe conspiracy theory won't have lasting notability. Cortador (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, WP:ONUS is on you to obtain consensus for the addition, not for us to tell you why it should be excluded. Since this is the article for the Republican Party, dating back to the 1850s, your addition is an UNDUE focus on recent events. Articles on the Trump administration and related topics are where that information belongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding this information does not shift the focus on the article; it's two paragraphs in one section. If you cite WP:UNDUE, I expect you to be able to explain why, and you haven't done that. The GOP supporting GRCT isn't a minority view point. It is backed up by many quality sources. Cortador (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The section was on things like immigration policy in general terms. You almost doubled the length and filled it with controversial material that is very RECENT and involves a large degree of accusation etc. Given this is supposed to be a general article about a party that is over 150 years old this sort of recent, details material is generally UNDUE. As Muboshgu noted, it might be due in a related article but not here. Springee (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Controversial according to whom? What "accusations" does it include, in your opinion? Also, since you mention that this information shouldn't be in that section, feel free to let me know where you think it should be included. Cortador (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I see your points, but I think inclusion belongs in the far right section and it should be brief and to the point. Your previous edit placed GRCT in the immigration section despite the issue of GRCT not being the "official platform" for the entire party, so saying "A number of Republicans" is too ambiguous when we can see who has been using it, and who hasn't. RS says that GRCT stems from the far right, so that's what we should say. If things change we can address it at that time. Agreed? DN (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The political positions section isn't just about the party platform e.g. the section on trade includes polling numbers because there's no general agreement on trade policies in the party. I do agree that GRCT should be mentioned as something the party's far-right faction supports, but support goes beyond that. Most of the sources on GOP support for GRCT have number too high to be explained by just that one faction. Cortador (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem with the poles where that data come from is the question is asked in such a way that someone who believes in the GRCT or someone who believes the Democratic party is trying to build up it's base through immigration policy. This is especially true given the very open boarder policies since Biden replaced Trump [2]. When a number of sources on both sides are basically saying the Democrats will use the mass influx of immigrants to shift political power [3]. It would be honest to claim X% of people who identify as Republican agree that Democrats support open immigration policies because it increases their base. It isn't inherent in the answers that the respondents agree with the racist GRCT as a whole. Attributed inclusion in the far right category (possibly with attributed counter points) may be due but it absolutely isn't due in this section. This is especially true since this is a very long article, about 15k words in the body and well into the trim/split size (wp:SIZERULE). Springee (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You are, again, doing OR. If you want to question the reliability of sources, you can do so on the reliable¨le sources noticeboard.

And again: Controversial according to whom? What "accusations" does it include, in your opinion? Also, as I mentioned above, GOP support for GRCT isn't limited to its far-right section. Cortador (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:OR. OR is specifically allowed when discussing how/if/where etc content should appear in an article. It is allowed when deciding if a particular claim in a source is accurate to the facts etc. OR applies to the article space, not talk pages. Certainly claiming 50%+ of Republican voters support a "racist" "conspiracy theory" is a controversial claim (and not one well supported by the source. It is also controversial to claim that people who support a long standing idea (see my Politico link) actually believe the racist conspiracy version of the idea. Springee (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Our opinion on the data from the poll is fairly irrelevant. We are not proposing putting it in WIKIVOICE and there would be an attribution to the actual poll, which makes it very clear this isn't a "claim" we are making.

The poll received plenty of coverage in mainstream sources due to the 2022 Buffalo shooting (NYT - WaPo - NBC - fivethirtyeight - The Guardian - TIME - NPR - USA Today - US News the list goes on...) and it's not the only poll CNN - SPLC - Washington Monthly. I believe we can shorten this down to some key aspects. If you want to include counter arguments from those sources you provided it will make it longer, but that's fine if everyone agrees it's necessary, or more NPOV.

Expert opinions, including historian and analyst of far-right wing groups, Mark Pitcavage, seem to be clear. The language being used is GRCT. PBS - AP News - aljazeera, there's Anthony DiMaggio, a scholar that studies the far right who wrote a piece in Salon about it. There's Larry Rosenthal, chair and lead researcher of the Berkeley Center for Right-Wing Studies in a piece by ABC News.

"The extent to which “great replacement” ideas have migrated from the fringe into something more routine among Republican lawmakers appears new. As many have noted, Fox News’s Tucker Carlson has relentlessly promoted versions of the idea, and numerous Republican officials have done the same. What’s different is the careful mainstreaming of fantasies about a deliberate plot to replace native-born Americans. That puts a new spin on garden-variety nativism or even on various forms of racial nationalism that envision Whiteness as central to American identity, notes Yale professor Philip Gorski" (said in a 2022 WaPo op-ed). “It’s been gradually moving from the fringes into the mainstream,” “First it was the entertainment wing of the GOP. Now it’s the political wing as well.”. DN (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The opinion matters because we can look at the same set of facts and see that the difference isn't the base information rather it's the political climate of the times. With that in mind we can elect to take a wait and see attitude towards this minor fact/point. Putting the material in as an attributed claim in the far right section may be due but in such a case the conservative response should also be included. It need not be given as much weight but it shouldn't be given zero given the underlying claim is an accusation of racism against a large swath of the US population. Springee (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion does not bear as much weight as that of experts and scholars that are already 2 years in. What is there to "wait and see"? Show us your sources and scholarly opinions to the contrary, and you may have a point, otherwise there is not much left to debate here. DN (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree but that doesn't mean we can't look at the facts at hand nor that we need to rush in some controversial claims. We really need to be careful about treating political talking points as fact. Also, while yes, you have found some scholars who claim this, given this is a very zoomed out topic (ie this isn't the GRCT topic) we need to ask, is this a consensus view or just some claim it? Finally, you shouldn't ignore the fact that we have the same facts/claims being treated as non-controversial in 2013 (see Politico and others) yet now viewed as racist. Rather than this back and forth, why not propose text and a location and we can try to come up with some type of consensus. Springee (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

We can work together to find a consensus and avoid any pitfalls, we just have to find sources and context we can agree on. There is more than enough here to work with. DN (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I do think we need a counterpoint even if we give it less weight. At least one scholar, James G. Gimpel (referenced in the Newsweek source), noted that immigration has been a force shifting voting demographics toward the Democrats. From the same article the political scientist Michael Anton noted claims of GR as an example where the same facts are viewed differently depending on the presenter. Springee (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

According to whom is any of this "controversial"? Name sources. This is the third time that you claim that any of this is controversial, and you have repeatedly failed to back this up by providing sources. Cortador (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

And I asked you to explain what OR you felt I was trying to add to the article. Springee (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I've done that twice already. Now I ask you again: name the sources according to which this is controversial. Cortador (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

No, you never said what content you think I'm proposing to add to the article that is OR. Conversely, I've already said that when you are proposing adding content that says over half of Republicans (and a large minority of Democrats and independents) believe in a "racist" "conspiracy theory" and when we have a non-conspiratorial explanation of the same facts and we do have academics in the field who disagree with the claim, yeah, that is controversial. Please stop badgering since it is clear I'm not changing your mind and your claims of OR are equally unpersuasive. Springee (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Name the sources. Cortador (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you aren't following the logical arguments. That said, I've already named two scholars who have noted the conflation of a long standing, non-controversial view with the GRCT. Do you have sources that explain why the two aren't the same? Perhaps we need to zoom out. You want to add a large swath of recent, controversial content to this article. How would you show it's DUE? Remember when dealing with a topic like the GOP there are volumes of books, scholarship and media content regarding the topic. How do we narrow that down to the ~10k words that are most important to the topic? Just because you can find some sources that say what you want, are they actually DUE? Perhaps the best way to address that question is look to see what other professional sources have decided to include/exclude. The Encyclopedia Britannica has no "far-right" section and it's only mention of "far-right" is with regards to Trump's social positions. This suggest the total weight that should be given to such a topic would be quite small. [4]. So what high level summary sources do you have that show this level of detail is at all DUE in the article? Springee (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The article you cited is an opinion piece by Pedro L. Gonzalez. There is no consensus whether Newsweek is a reliable source. This one op-ed is not sufficient to conclude that there's any controversy over GOP support for GRCT. There's no consensus whether Encyclopedia Britannica is a reliable sources/suitable for Wikipedia; it doesn't matter whether or not one specific encyclopedia has a "far right" entry.

Name RS that confirm that stating that the GOP voters and members support GRCT is controversial. You thus far haven't done that, and your behaviour increasingly looks like stonewalling. Cortador (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The author is a political scientist at U of Maryland. I'm cutting him to show that the claims are didputed. The fact that at least two scholars have disputed the claim and they have explained why means we should not treat this as fact. Furthermore how much weight it should get (or the whole section should get) needs to be established. The best way to do that is find summary sources and follow their lead. Can you point to any summary sources that include this content? Springee (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It's an op-ed from an sources not considered to be reliable. It's unsuitable to conclude that there's any controversy over GOP support for GRCT. Name RS that confirm that stating that the GOP voters and members support GRCT is controversial.

I don't need to find you a "summary source" because there's no requirement for that. It's another hurdle you created that isn't Wikimedia policy. Cortador (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It's the view of a scholar on the topic. As for establishing weight, yes, we should look to outside sources to establish weight. That is how we're decide what is due in a high level article vs what is a detail. Prepare we should let others weigh in. Springee (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The term "controversial" doesn't even appear in your source. You are free to seek consensus that your single opinion piece from a source not found to be reliable here qualifies for the statements you want to make. Until you do that, it does not. Cortador (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Using your edit, I propose some version closer to this for the far right subsection...It's shorter and more focused on key aspects.

• Republican representatives on the far-right have espoused the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. According to a 2022 study by AP and NORC, half of Republicans surveyed agree with GRCT, compared to a third of all participants and 20% of Democrats surveyed. A poll by Yahoo News and YouGov in the same year showed that 61% of Trump voters agreed with the core message of the conspiracy theory. This is a shift from the party's 2013 post-election assessment, which concluded that the Republican Party needed to appeal to minorities in order to be successful.

I don't think a list of which representatives that have used it is DUE here. That would be better left to their own individual article pages. The House Oversight and Accountability Committee would only be relevant if we specify the 118th Congress. H.Res.413 - Condemning the Great Replacement Theory DN (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

We could also use a qualifier including the names of notable scholars that concur with this. DN (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this should be included in the article, and I agree with DN's proposal. I also think that the party's embrace of Trumpism should be included within parentheses in the ideology section of the infobox next to right wing populism, but that's an issue for another day. BootsED (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

That seems fair considering that the article body already links the two. Cortador (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This should not be added to the immigration section. Springee (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu I've asked you to explain why you believe that the GOP supporting GRCT is a minority or fringe view, and you haven't done that. Please do so. Cortador (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I never said that it was. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you did. WP:UNDUE is the policy you linked to in your revert. What significant viewpoint do you think is not represented here? Cortador (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE both speak to NPOV, but they are not the same thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

You linked here in your revert: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." What viewpoint do you think is not represented here? Cortador (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu You still haven't answered my question. This is the section you linked to in your revert. I'm asking you again: what viewpoint do you think is not represented here?

:::::Due and undue weight

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

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

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

Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

If you can prove a theory that few or none believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in sources that are reliable, it may be appropriately included. See "No original research" and "Verifiability". Cortador (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Jumping in here - the content is 100% appropriate, it's 100% WP:DUE, it's supported by high-quality sources, and removing it, or advocating for its removal, is clearly just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as I don't see a single solid reason offered in this discussion for whitewashing that content out of the article. It should be re-inserted immediately. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Currently, I think a brief mention the recent polls would be sufficient, but GRCT still seems primarily a far-right speaking point. While the FR faction has seemingly been guiding GOP social policy, unless RS shows GRCT as the long term dogma of the entire republican party, I don't see GRCT as anything other than the current FR view of immigration policy for the GOP. We don't list each factions views in this section. DN (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Position

It would be good for the Republican Party to have a political position, a first view of the page for anyone should clarify what line the party follows when positioning it on the political spectrum. I propose that I simply have this as a "Right-leaning" position, which is something that we all know is the party Monito rapido (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times. The info-box already states the ideology of the party. Different informed observers will place that in different parts of the political spectrum. Even the same observers may use different descriptions which are clear from context. But labels in the info-box have no context.

Furthermore, the left/right division between the two parties only crystalized about 40 years ago. TFD (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Spelling error that I can't fix

The page is protected so I can't edit it but it says "As of 2024, Trumpist's are the dominant faction of the GOP."

"Trumpists" should not be not be apostrophised here. Hope someone can fix this! HYPERIAPATH (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inaccurate and missing factions in the Infobox and article

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

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

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

Thus, I would propose the following changes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. This makes sense to me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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