Talk:Republican Party (United States)

political position 2
I think its REALLY REALLY important for a political party to state their political position! the Republicans are centre-right/right-wing and it needs to be stated just like the Democrats being centre-left. or is it different over there in the states? cause almost every party here on Wikipedia has clearly stated their political position except maybe for the CCP but duhh thats expected. requesting the admins to take necessary actions Credmaster 20 (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this obsession with applying these simplistic labels. How do you determine the position of a party with some positions on the left and some on the right? Do certain positions take precedence over others for this determination? Could two such mixed parties wind up labelled the same, yet be diametrically opposed to each other? Are "right" and "left" related to the politics of the country in question or to some hypothetical world-wide standard? A clear description of the party's stated positions would seem much more useful than just slapping these tags on them. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of research by scholars and research institutions about the left-right spectrum in political science. It is particularly studied in comparative politics and international relations to understand political trends globally and sometimes coordination across country boundaries. The formation of political groups of the European Parliament, like the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe, or the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) is one demonstration of parties from different countries that are similarly positioned coordinating with each other. These parties also claim partners outside of Europe. The ECR claims the Republican Party as a partner, and supported the candidacy of Donald Trump in 2020 . Another example are political internationals. Experts in this field have done research, gone through peer review, and have established how to define political positions. Center-left, center-right, and right-wing are also all defined here on Wikipedia with citations. How an individual editor defines these does not matter. The majority opinion found in the literature on this topic is what would be added. Editors should not be asked to rely on their own opinions. This has been stated many times by many editors. The insinuation that editors who suggest adding a political position are "slapping these tags on them" at this point is insulting when you have been engaged in this discussion over a long time. Ray522 (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In comparative politics, political scientists group parties according to ideology, not position in the poltical spectrum. They use groupings such as liberal, socialist/social democrtic and Christian democratic. They place for example the Labour Party (UK), Social Democratic Party of Germany and Socialist Party of France in the same ideological group. They don't use the groupings of center left, left, centrist etc. because of their lack of precision.
 * We cannot use Wikipedia articles such as center left and information about parties to place them on the political spectrum, per WP:SYN. TFD (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The purpose of referencing the other pages was to see that sources exists, and others can be found if needed. And that asking for individual editors to define words would be asking them to do original research WP:NOR. Yes, ideologies are studied in comparative politics. Additionally, there is also research that looks at the left-right specturm, like this from the | Manifesto Project Database, which was referenced by another editor a while ago, and written about in the | New York Times. There are also articles like this article, which discusses and references both ideologies and the left-right spectrum in comparing political events in two different countries, or this book chapter . Ray522 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support If for no other reason than to stop this issue from being brought up ad nauseam. To my knowledge, the Democratic party article also does not list it's political position either, however, we can all assume this issue will be raised over and over until it is addressed, as it has been for years. DN (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And then we argue ad nauseum about where specifically in the political spectrum each party lies. Presumably the two parties together cover the entire range of the political spectrum and in fact overlap, although not so much now as in the past. TFD (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * support
 * All other country parties do this
 * The Republican Party should be designated as right to far right
 * Democrats centre left to centre right 174.89.12.70 (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No democrats should be labeled as center-right. Maybe in economics, but I assure you not in social policies. 2600:1007:B050:1433:9581:313A:75F:CC5D (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Remove political position. The political position should not be included here just as it is not included in the Democrat article. Americans in general don’t have a true grasp of the left/right spectrum and with only two major parties each contain views from the center to the extreme. To label the Republican Party as right-wing but the Democrat Party not left-wing rings of bias which should always be avoided on a Wikipedia page. The sources cited themselves have been heavily accused of being left leaning to lift-wing making them impartial. I’m certain with just very little research there would also be enough right leaning to right-wing sources to label the Democrat Party as left-wing as well. It’s all about how both sides choose to spin the data. At the most each party should be labeled as ether left or right or both not labeled at all. Straykat99 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ""but the Democrat Party not left-wing" What do the Democrats have in common with left-wing politics? Per the main article on the topic: "Today, ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy are considered to be centre-left, while the Left is typically reserved for movements more critical of capitalism, including the labour movement, socialism, anarchism, communism, Marxism and syndicalism, each of which rose to prominence in the 19th and 20th centuries." Last I checked, the Democrats are supporters of capitalism. Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Just because you do not believe that Americans have a grasp on the left-right political spectrum does not mean that it is not there in our two political parties. Also in response to the comment that Democrats are not a left-leaning party, that is not fully true. The Democrats support a capitalist-socialist system. They support capitalism in that they support the free market, but they support socialism in that they support regulations by the government on that market, as well as supporting many social systems set up. They also support the left in their social policies. 174.240.149.73 (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but the Democrats are definitely not centre-left. More like centre to centre-right, with the republicans being right-wing to far-right. Rares Kosa (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Economically yes your correct but if you think that democrats are centre right socially then you need to get info about the u.s. that isn’t from a European TV station. socially democrats are centre to left. 107.115.41.124 (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of centre-right parties are socially progressive (such as Macron’s Renaissance, the Save Romania Union, and Fine Gael). That doesn’t make them centre-left. Rares Kosa (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The Republican party is NOT centre-right, as they have ultraconservative social leanings and very right wing economic policy at the moment. This is like saying that the Republican party is the same as the Liberal Party of Australia economically and socially, which it isn't . 101.119.138.41 (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While I think it makes sense to add "right-wing", there are numerous sources stating that the GOP has a far-right faction (as pretty much any American knows), while the given infobox sources for "center-right" all likewise state that the party has center-right factions, not that it is inherently center-right, nor that the party establishment is center-right. I think the most reasonable "political position" would be "right-wing", and below that "center-right to far-right" as "factions", like in these articles. PtolemyXV (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Poll: Should the article include a political position for the Republican Party in the infobox?
Issue: We've had a number of discussion about whether or not to include a political position in the infobox - at least four this year alone (1, 2, 3, 4). The position was recently removed again. Before having a formal RfC, let's have a poll on whether to include a position instead of a bunch more discussion with no clear consensus. A lesser question is what position that should be. The article previously stated that the position was right-wing, with parts of the party being centre-right or far-right (see here). I didn't see many (if any) objections to that specific position, only objections to including a position in general, regardless of what that position is, so I'll go with that for now. If someone objects to that, we can modify the poll, or just state in your reply what you prefer.

Tagging editors involved in the previous discussions: @Monito rapido @The Four Deuces @2600:8801:1187:7F00:355E:943C:4E4A:C550 @JohnAdams1800 @Darknipples @Dimadick @Springee @Loytra @HiLo48 @Completely Random Guy @Toa Nidhiki05 @Aficionado538 @Credmaster 20 @Khajidha @Ray522 @174.89.12.70 @Straykat99 @Carlp941 @GoodDay @Aquillion @Moxy

Question: Should the article infobox state that the GOP's political position is right-wing, with parts of the party being centre-right or far-right?

Poll and discussion:

Cortador (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the political position is excluded, and the infobox is not that useful in simply listing names of party officials. Dimadick (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're going to make a proposal, can you at least do so in American English, per ENGVAR? For what it's worth - I object to both the addition, as well as framing the far edge of the party as the "centre-right" (sic) when the far edge is, in fact, centrism, per reliable sources. At that point, you're saying the party stretches from the center to the far right, which is... also true of essentially every right-of-center party. Toa Nidhiki05 14:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support because the Republican Party is now much more ideologically right-wing than many other conservative political parties worldwide--i.e. compare it to the Conservative Party (UK), the CDU/CSU in Germany, etc. It is similar to parties like Law and Justice in Poland, Fidesz in Hungary, or maybe the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) (a big-tent of the right). The comparison isn't exact, because most countries use multi-party systems, but many mainstream Republican positions cannot be described simply as center-right. Side-note: This is not about my personal political views, but how reliable sources describe the party.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongly support adding something for the ideology of this party. I feel right wing is the most fitting, but am happy to add positions for the factions as well.
 * I am not persuaded by arguments of American political uniqueness - it doesn't stop reliable sources from describing the party's position, and I do not think it should stop us. I would need to see many reliable, academic sources that explicitly say something like "America's political system is so unique that their political parties defy any political positioning on the left-right axis, and no serious scholar would do so."
 * I am not persuaded by the argument that the GOP is a big tent party - we have labelled plenty of big tent parties in other countrues and it is widely known that the GOP is a sort of big tent of the right wing.
 * I am not persuaded by the idea that political positioning is highly contextual - that hasn't stopped us from labeling the political position of parties in countries we don't live in. Carlp941 (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So if one reliable source refers to Churchill as right-wing and another refers to Hitler as right-wing, do you think they are using the terms in the same way? Ditto with sources referring to Stalin as left-wing and others referring to FDR as left-wing, TFD (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "right wing politics" covers a broad set of ideologies, i don't see how "being a different kind of right wing" means this page should abandon the label of right wing. i hope it's clear that i'm not proposing roping in the GOP with the Nazi Party. they're both right wing, but obviously different kinds of right wing.
 * Carlp941 (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the info-box is to convey information to readers and we should not expect them to know anything about the Republican Party before accessing the article. What information does saying they are right-wing, without context, convey to the reader? They could be neo-Nazis, fascists, neo-conservatives, One Nation Tories, Klansmen, liberals or even social democrats. Thanks Wikipedia for narrowing that down! At least we know they are not revolutionary socialists or communists! TFD (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as a problem. The ideologies would be listed close by, it would be quite clear what kind of right wingers the GOP is. No one is advocating removing the ideologies and replacing it with the spectrum position.
 * This argument makes your objection less clear to me. Is your position that political parties should not have their position on the left-right spectrum in their infobox? You'd have to make a stronger argument to convince me of that. Carlp941 (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose If by right-wing, you mean position in a bipolar spectrum where all parties are either left or right of the mean,then it is right-wing. If by center-right, you mean the mainstream of parties to the right of the mean, it is center-right.
 * If by far right, you mean groups that have been historically to the right of mainstream parties to the right of the mean, then parts are far right. If by far right, you mean the furthest right of the political spectrum, such as neo-Nazis, the no parts are far right.
 * However, the term "parts" can mean two or more people who voted in a primary, in which case any ideology could be considered part of the party. Per WEASEL, we shouldn't be using terms like this unless they can be quantified.
 * Also, are you talking about the federal party or the fifty plus state parties that send delegates to the federal party?
 * Whatever your answer, it requires too much nuance to be reduced to a couple of words in an into-box.
 * TFD (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You will be pleased to hear that we won't include a position based on what I think, but what reliable sources think (which the last addition of a political position that was recently removed did include). Cortador (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since reliable sources differ, you will have to base the decision on which reliable sources you agree with, which is the same thing. TFD (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * that is plainly not the same thing, and you're making an argument against the basic foundations of wikipedia. Carlp941 (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The same level of nuance applies to any other political party in the world. Why should United States political parties be the only ones that are exempted from having their infobox show a position in the political spectrum? BTW, to assert that there are no parts of the Republican Party that are at the furthest right of the political spectrum is simply incorrect. Given that some Republican candidates literally are neo-Nazis. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And some Democratic candidates are literally communists. Neither party actually has any control over who they nominate! Toa Nidhiki05 17:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Because the two parties AFAIK are the only two parties that have no members and no control over who runs under their banner, except for the president and VP. Ever wonder why the U.S., which has more consumer choice than any other country, has only two parties? Because both parties allow candidates across the political spectrum, from actual fascists to actual communists. TFD (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * At one point, lunatics from the LaRouche movement managed to claim the Dem nominations for key offices in Illinois. Would we say that the LaRouchers was the party's ideology? Of course not. Toa Nidhiki05 00:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support political position for the party-at-large as simply "Right-wing", oppose labelling specific parts of the party (centre-right, far-right, etc), also oppose labelling factions within the party. I think the party being on the "the right" is indisputable. Quibbling over anything more specific I think will result in endless debates, is likely to result in WP:UNDUE labels, and could be subject to WP:RECENTISM, so a broad stroke is best. — Czello (music</i>) 16:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong support for "right-wing" in the infobox, because by any fact-based standard that's exactly what the party's position is, and there is no lack of reliable sources saying so. There should be no difficulty in having United States political parties be treated the same way as parties in the rest of the world are. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Cortador Strongly in Favour I think it is really important that any party irrespective of the country that they should specify their political position, and the Republicans are not exempt from that. stating one's political position helps the people to understand more about the ideologies of a certain party, Be it the Republicans or the Democrats. Thank you for having a poll on this matter. Credmaster 20 (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Should be the same setup at both GOP and Democrat page I don't feel strongly one way or the other.  Those who oppose are making sound arguments.  In context of the US two party system the Republicans are on average to the right of the Democrats and often they are labeled by sources as the right while the Democrats are labeled the left.  Note I don't think it is valid to say "compared to the world" as that isn't a realistic measure in a two party system.  However, the argument that they often swap sides is also valid.  50 years ago the Democrats were the free speech party.  Now the reverse is true.  Those arguing against are correct in saying the issue is complex (per NPR ).  If there is a consensus to make this happen to both articles at the same time I would weakly support it.  If the idea is only do it here then maybe someone else can argue about it at the Democrat page, then I would oppose it.  The two party pages should have a large degree of common structure and information.  Springee (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't it ambiguous if the reader doesn't know whether the party is being compared with the other major U.S. party or with other parties? Wouldn't it be better to state what you have said in the text of the article? TFD (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Cortador Support There seems to be majority support, and for reasons previously stated. DN (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be best to wait a few days before deciding. It would also be better if all views agree a consensus had been reached. Springee (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I will note, it does look like a consensus to include will form. Springee (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Conditional - Only if the Democratic Party includes one at its own infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Including a position is useful, and no sources have been brought up that sufficiently support that the GOP's position can't be defined. Tying the position to the Democratic Party's position is pointless; we should go by what sources say about the GOP, regardless what they say about other parties. Cortador (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, we should keep the two articles aligned. I would also note that the NPR source I linked above does show cross over between GOP and Dem groups even as it shows the majority of people who lean towards either party are mostly on the side NPR views as left vs right.  This again supports the idea that it's both complex and something that should be part of either both or neither article. Springee (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The articles should be aligned, and symmetrical. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 00:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cortador here (I know, first time for everything). Every article should have its own censensus (unless overidden by policy or a Wikiproject), and I think adding a position to this article being conditional on the Dem article having the same is effectively WP:FALSEBALANCE. If the community decides the Dem article should have a position, fine – but it shouldn't affect this article. It also creates an arbitrary barrier to decision-making: we shouldn't need to seek consensus at a different article first in order to make a change to this article, and if the same condition is applied there then we're stuck in a loop. (FWIW, I think the Democratic article should also have a position listed.) — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 07:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point about the barrier. This condition would make the barrier unreasonably high, as it would require a consensus on both article talk pages to go with this method of inclusion, and on top of that consensus on both positions to actually include. Also, if sources don't agree on the position of either party, this would gate off information in the other article for basically no gain. Cortador (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since political position is a relative concept, logically if one of the two parties can be placed on the spectrum, the other should as well. And even though historically there was ideological overlap, to the extent that there were communist Republicans and fascist Democrats, the Republicans were always to the right of the Democrats. TFD (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Potential support as per what @GoodDay said, I would only support adding a position to the Republican Party if we do the same for the Democratic Party, it's only fair. Though I understand @<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>'s point. It should be taken on a case by case basis. However, giving one party a position and not also trying to establish a consensus on the other's may come off as biased, I can foresee potential debates and edit wars coming out of that that. Given the current political climate, and the fact that it's an election year, we should try to establish consensus for both pages. Completely Random Guy (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support for adding 'right-wing' as a majority position and 'center-right to far-right' as factional ones. I support this regardless of whether or not the Democratic Party page lists a position, per Cortador's comments. Not adding a position to this page because a consensus hasn't been decided for the other one is purely unhelpful. It'd be withholding vital information from the reader for essentially no reason. If reliable sources state the GOP is right-wing but can't seem to agree on a position for the Democrats, who are we to intentionally hide the former information from the reader?
 * I've seen arguments that the two articles would have to be aligned because the party's political positions are relative to each other, but I simply don't agree. The party's political positions indicate their allegiance to certain ideologies. The GOP's main ideological current is conservatism and it espouses inherently right-wing policies. This is the case no matter what policies the Democrats are in favour of.
 * In Australia, the two major parties are the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. Relative to each other, one is left-wing and the other is right-wing. But Wikipedia, instead, correctly identifies them as 'centre-left' and 'centre-right', respectively. This is because both parties espouse support for a capitalist, market based economy — positions that are nearly objectively centrist in the realm of political science. Under Nazi Germany, the Nazi Party was the only existing political party. As there was no other party to compare it to, did this make it a centrist party? Did it not hold a political position at all? Of course not, it was still an objectively fascist, far-right party, and reliable sources accurately describe it as such.
 * Ultimately, the Republicans are right-wing, no matter what position we list for the Democrats.
 * Loytra (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sourcing to back your claims up? And of course, more specifically, you can't compare the "political spectrum" in a dictatorship to one in a democracy, so I feel like what you're saying simply doesn't make sense. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Do I have a reliable source to back what claims up, exactly? Numerous, numerous sources have been provided to show that the GOP is a right-wing party (around 10 were included in the edit that added a position to the infobox in the first place).
 * Additionally, I'm not really sure why a dictatorship vs a democracy matters in this case. The specific argument I was referencing makes a point that a party's political position can only be ascertained if there's another party to compare it to. Under a single-party state there are simply no other parties to make such a comparison. Therefore, you shouldn't be able to figure out a position.
 * Of course, if you'd be comparing it to other political movements in general, that's a different story (and also shows that you don't have to directly compare parties to figure out one's position; hence we can include the GOP's without including the Democrats'). Loytra (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It depends on what your definition of right-wing is. If you mean right of center, then both the Reps and Libs are right-wing. If by center right, you mean somewhere between social liberalism and fascism, then both are center-right. If by centrist, you use Schlesinger's definition as being between communism and fascism, then both are centrist. And there are rs for all these descriptions,
 * What is your definition of right-wing? TFD (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Objection to removal of Whig party from the info box
See edit...

I'm unclear in regard to the particulars of the objection in the edit summary "A direct lineage from the Whig Party singled out is not accurate, at least without the other parties mentioned." To my knowledge the Whig party was the dominant opposition to the Democrat party at the the time and is commonly referred to as a kind of "predecessor" to the Republican party, for lack of a better term.

To quote a Professor of American History, Michael F. Holt... "Republicans carried eleven of sixteen free states in 1856, thereby establishing themselves as the successor to the Whigs" Northern Illinois University

If you are unfamiliar with Holt, there are other sources, but I haven't bothered to count them all.

Daniel Walker Howe "Republican spokesmen were concerned to define their cause as the party of the victorious Union, not merely as the successor to the Whigs" University of Michigan

As it stands, the article mentions the Whig party several times, with no correlation to the info box. Perhaps we can come to a consensus on a way to revise it without reverting?

Cheers. DN (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My objection is less to including the Whigs and more to only including them and not others, like the Free Soil Party, where essentially everyone shifted to the GOP. If that's changed, I'm fine re-adding it. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 05:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They are already listed in the info-box under the pretense of Merger of, which is not incorrect as far as I can tell. It would help if you had some sources to bolster your objection, and help us find consensus. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So, do we have any quality sources that dispute this successorship from the Whig party as historians call it, or include these other parties as primary predecessors? DN (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your own sources don't even display a clear successorship, which is why it had to have "de facto" as a disclaimer. As for the Free Soil Party - here's a few:


 * 
 * (also notes that Whigs split off into the two parties based on slavery, and the GOP had absorbed most of the Know-Nothings as well)
 * 
 * Basically, there's a much clearer tie between GOP and Free Soilers than GOP and Whigs. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 22:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There were also Democrats and independents (including elected politicians) who joined the new party. The origins of the party are too complex to distill into a brief entry in the info-box. Bear in mind that unlike other countries, the two major parties in the U.S. never had underlying ideologies, but were shifting coalitions based on the issues of the day. TFD (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Your own sources don't even display a clear successorship"
 * You mean, aside from the explicit quotes I provided? DN (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your objection closely resembles the Alternative History Wiki. Alternate history (also referred to as alternative history, allohistory, althist, or simply AH) is a subgenre of speculative fiction in which one or more historical events have occurred but are resolved differently than in actual history. Here's historian Steven Mintz... "As late as 1850, the two-party system seemed healthy. Democrats and Whigs drew strength in all parts of the country. Then, in the early 1850s, the two-party system began to disintegrate in response to massive foreign immigration. By 1856 the Whig party had collapsed and been replaced by a new sectional party, the Republicans." DN (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What are you even talking about? I gave sources, and your response is to call it "alt history". What? That's not even a response worth glorifying.
 * Regardless, your source said replaced, but it does not say it was a successor party - which is what you are claiming. Take the first source you mentioned - you chopped out the bit of the quote after where it also noted that the party had no support in the South (where the Whigs had, in fact, existed); effectively, the Republicans began as a regional party, not a national one like the Whigs had been. I think "successor" is very clearly referring, as it was framed at the start of the section on the party, to the place the Whigs had in the system - not to the Whig Party itself. The second source is more straightforward, but the bit about being a successor is literally a passing mention. Whereas the sources I provided say outright that the Free Soil Party membership did, in fact, all move over to the Republicans. That is a clearer claim to succession. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 05:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since you are commenting on my actions, I also "chopped out" this bit from my first source, under the section aptly titled, The Republican Party...You may have missed it.
 * "The Republican party was one of two new parties to emerge between 1854 and 1856 to challenge Whigs for their role as primary opponent of Democrats." - historian Matt F. Holt
 * None of your sources seem to say "there's a much clearer tie between GOP and Free Soilers than GOP and Whigs.", or dispute that the Whigs was one of the primary parties at the beginning of America's two-party system. Now the discussion has turned into a semantic argument in search of some meaningful difference between the terms replacement and successorship, and into a hunt for red herrings about regional and geographical political support structures.
 * Perhaps I shouldn't assume that the argument now also seems to be that we can dismiss explicit quotes by three historians that don't all work for the same privately funded institute that's part of the State Policy Network, yet still all essentially say the same thing.
 * I'll have to give it some thought. Cheers. DN (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the biographies of leadership of the new GOP all emphasize the central role of many years of Whig activity--as compared to a matter of months for the other short-lived parties. Lincoln is the best example. Rjensen (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of Lincoln as a prime example as well, but you beat me to it. DN (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , again, what in the bit you just cited says the Whigs were the predecessor party? You can take over a party's position without taking over the party. You have not responded to my point about the Whigs yet either - Southern Whigs, in the national party, did not become Republicans, whereas Republicans did absorb the Free Soil Party's membership - and most of the Know-Nothings, too. Even after the Whigs died, the Republicans were not a national party because they only absorbed northern Whigs into the fold; southern Whigs went their own way, forming an opposition to Jefferson Davis, but did not become Republicans and ultimately became Democrats. The Constitutional Union Party is also regarded as a claimant to much of the Whig legacy (xEgerton (2010), pp. 99–100)
 * Rather than dismissing what I'm saying out of hand and just generally being rude about it, I would prefer if you'd actually make substantive responses to it. I am not arguing the Whigs did not have some role in the GOP. What I am arguing is that they did not absorb the Whig Party (which is true), and that they absorbed the greater part of several other parties. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of being rude seems a bit off topic. DN (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems the issue is getting conflated by which party "absorbed" the other, or which party had more "in common" with the other, rather than focusing on what RS explicitly tells us. As you mentioned earlier, the term "de-facto" was used in the description, which I think is still a fitting way of conveying what seems to be your point. You have yet to offer a better option, and it's utter removal does not seem like an improvement. DN (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't read the source that says the Republicans replaced the Whigs in the same way. There was a two party system that drew support from all parts of the country. Slavery became the major issue and the party system "disintegrated." Of the two new sides, one regrouped in the Democratic Party, the others regrouped in the new Republican Party.
 * In the UK, the liberal-conservative dichotomy collapsed and the Labour Party replaced the Liberals as one of the two major parties. I wouldn't consider them the successor party, not only because the Liberals continued as a minor party, but because there was a realignment as the Tories became the party of big business and Labour the party of the workers. In a sense most Liberals regrouped to both parties. TFD (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a really good example. On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats are the successors to the Liberal Party, because the party merged into the Liberal Democrats. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support restoring the GOP was a Whig Party successor. There's enough high-quality sources supporting just that. Cortador (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, both the Whig & Republican parties, co-existed for two years. Each had their own candidates in the 1856 US prez election. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Good point. The Republicans therefore succeeded the Whigs as one of two major parties, just as Labour succeeded the UK Liberals. That's actually clear in the sources presented. But I believe that the box is for a name change or resurrection. TFD (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I'm not opposed to a change other than total omission of relevant and factual info. DN (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am also opposed to the total omission of relevant and factual info. However, that does not mean that I think all relevant and factual info about the Republican Party should be in the info-box.
 * I am particularly opposed to including information that is ambiguous, misleading or nuanced. Obviously, if we need a footnote explaining why the Whig party belongs there, it defeats that purpose.
 * In this case, the Whig Party was not the "predecessor" party of the Republicans, since it continued to exist after the Republican Party was founded. In the aforementioned 1856 election for example it got 21.5% of the vote, while the Republicans got 33.1%.
 * By predecessor, most readers would assume that the two parties did not exist at the same time and that Whigs had joined the Republicans en masse. In fact there was a realignment with one group moving to the Democrats and the others joining a new party.
 * The Republican Party was a new party based on opposition of slavery in the western territories. The issue had been ignored by the main parties until then. It definitely was not the official position of the Whig Party, but had crossed party lines.
 * Indeed, the Republicans replaced the Whigs as one of the two major parties of an essentially two party system. But I think it's better explained in the article. TFD (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Clearly, I'm not suggesting that all relevant and factual info should be in the info box.
 * This longstanding edit is the type of context that is consistently located in the info box for most articles such as this.
 * Speaking of letting the article explain it, as it currently stands, the Free Soilers and Anti-Nebraska movement are still in the info-box. If historians generally agree that those groups are more central to the party's overview than the Whigs, and therefore worthy of mention in the box, while the Whigs are not, where does this article make that point?
 * Conversely, no one here, including the editor responsible for this change, has suggested anything other than just intentionally leaving it blank, which readers might also find confusing, ambiguous, misleading or nuanced.
 * For example, Abraham Lincoln, a former Whig Party leader, was the Republican party's first president, but there's not even a mention of this connection, and up to this point I wouldn't have considered it remotely necessary.
 * In the history section it says...
 * They (Republicans) denounced the expansion of slavery as a great evil, but did not call for ending it in the Southern states. While opposition to the expansion of slavery was the most consequential founding principle of the party, like the Whig Party it replaced, Republicans also called for economic and social modernization. (George H. Mayer, The Republican Party, 1854-1964 (1965) pp. 23–30.)
 * The terms replacement and successor are consistently used by historians and RS in describing the relationship between the Whigs and the GOP.
 * If this edit stands as is, are Wikipedia readers to assume it is unnecessary or inaccurate context at the History of the Republican Party (United States), and all other articles that mention that connection?
 * Since historians and most RS do place emphasis on the successorship or replacement of the Whigs by the GOP, how are we improving this Wikipedia article by removing it in this singular instance, and nothing else? DN (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by the statement that the GOP replaced the Whigs? Do you mean merely that the U.S. transitioned from the two party system dominated by Democrats and Whigs to one dominated to Democrats and Republicans? If so, is that what you think the average reader would conclude from the info-box? If not, is there any reason the article should leave the readers with false views? TFD (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears to be the general consensus stated by historians, including ones already cited in the article, not I. I've already expressed my concerns about what readers will gather from the sudden omission of this longstanding edit that used to be consistent with every other article referring to this topic on Wikipedia. The onus is on the editor that made the change. DN (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I have not explained myself clearly so I shall try again. Let me break my argument down:
 * Premise 1: There is consensus that the Republicans replaced the Whigs as one of the two major parties.
 * Premise 2: There is consensus that there is no direct lineage from Whigs to Republicans.
 * Premise 3: Calling the Whigs the predecessor of the Republicans falsely implies that there is a direct lineage, unless we explain that there is no direct lineage.
 * Premise 4: Info-boxes should not contain false or misleading information.
 * Premise 5: Info-boxes should not contain information that requires clarification.
 * Conclusion: The info-box should not say the Whig Party was the predecessor of the Republican Party.
 * Do you (a) disagree with any of my premises or (b) disagree that the conclusion is supported by the premises.
 * Please do not say that you have sources because I have already agreed to that in Premise 1. TFD (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would likely disagree with (a-2&3), as there appears to be some direct lineage, with Lincoln being a prime example, as Rjensen mentioned earlier.
 * For the sake of clarity, I'm adding what Toa removed from the info box, here.
 * The Republican Party was formed as a northern party dedicated to antislavery, drawing from the antislavery wing of the Whig Party ("Conscience Whigs") and combining Free Soil, Liberty Party, and antislavery Democratic Party members.
 * DN (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't think the sources you provided say there is a direct lineage. Also, I don't see how there can be a direct predecessor/successor relationship between two organizations that overlapped in existence. TFD (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In March 2009 you said that "the predecessors were the Federalists (1792-1816), National Republicans (1825-1833) and Whigs (1833-1856), (all dates approximate)", and recently told GoodDay (above) that "The Republicans therefore succeeded the Whigs as one of two major parties". How do you reconcile what you are now telling me, that because two organizations overlap in existence, they cannot have a predecessor/successor relationship? DN (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See: CONTEXT: "the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect." Example: "You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context." (Dictionary.com)
 * In this case you misinterpreted my remarks and created a strawman argument. As I said above, the Republicans were the successors to the Whigs in some contexts. In other contexts they weren't. As I observed in my posting of 15 years ago, which for some reason you looked up, the Whigs "ultimately failed because of the narrowness of their base or the fragility of their coalitions, especially as new wealth emerged and the vote was widened."
 * See also "Fact check: Clip of Biden taken out of context to portray him as plotting a voter fraud scheme." (Reuters Oct. 29 2020) Taking sources out of context is misleading,the opposite of what articles are supposed to do. TFD (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Clearly I was asking you to clarify your statements, not attacking them. Let's at least try to clarify what you are arguing. Creating a strawman wasn't my intention, but we still need some clarification here.
 * Would you agree at this point that your argument consists of at least these two points?
 * (a) That two organizations that overlap in existence, cannot have a predecessor/successor relationship.
 * (b) The sources provided don't say there is a direct lineage
 * Cheers. DN (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How does the "failure because of the narrowness of their base or the fragility of their coalitions, especially as new wealth emerged and the vote was widened." disqualify the Whigs as the Republican party's predecessor, as reliable sources put it?
 * predecessor: "something succeeded or replaced by something else." Dictionary.com DN (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Abraham Lincoln is indeed a Whig that became a Republican. However, he did so two years after the Republican Party was founded. I don't consider this convincing. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 23:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, the onus isn't on me. The onus is on you, and TFD as well now, I suppose. DN (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please explain your two year deadline for lineage, theory. DN (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's actually any time. Most people view events sequentially, so that successive organizations follow preceding ones in time. They don't coexist on the same timeline. TFD (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "It's actually any time. Most people view events sequentially, so that successive organizations follow preceding ones in time. They don't coexist on the same timeline."
 * , do you agree with the above explanation by TFD? DN (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That a party can't succeed another that still exists as a major party? Yes. Morover, as I said before, the northern Whigs generally fractured into the Republicans, but southern Whigs did not. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 12:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources seem to ascertain that the Whigs were no longer a major party because they either joined the Republicans or the Know Nothings etc... So I'm not clear on what the point of this argument is. Perhaps we can clarify this by asking...
 * Which RS says that because the southern Whigs did not join the Republicans, it had no relation to them, or, that it disqualified them in some way as predecessors.
 * Is your point that RS states it was a merger? If so, please point out the RS.
 * DN (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you think the expression "Preceded by" means? TFD (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue here. This issue is there's no RS backing up your argument. Let's not make this personal...again. DN (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is the issue because you want to put "Preceded by: Whigs" in the info-box. It may be that you have a different understanding of what the term means. What do you think the expression "Preceded by" means? TFD (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't make it any clearer.
 * The ONUS is not on me.
 * The ONUS on YOU and TOA to keep this change.
 * I'm following what RS says, not what I "want", or what I "think". DN (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Try explaining how the "failure because of the narrowness of their base or the fragility of their coalitions, especially as new wealth emerged and the vote was widened." disqualify the Whigs as the Republican party's predecessor, before you move on to your next question. DN (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Restoring a previous version
I have added to the Whig party back to the merger of section because leaving them out seems likely to be an NPOV issue.

The arguments thus far appear to be...

A. The Republican party only absorbed northern Whigs, therefore the Whig party is not the predecessor to the Republican party. B. Because both parties existed at the same time, the Whig party is not the predecessor to the Republican party. C. There is no direct lineage of Whigs into the Republican party.

Of the sources Toa provided...

1. BRI "The failure of the Wilmot Proviso was a landmark moment because it convinced some members of the Liberty Party, the Barnburner Democrats, and the Conscience Whigs to create a new political organization. In the summer of 1848, they came together in conventions in Buffalo, New York, and formed the Free Soil Party, nominating Martin Van Buren as their candidate for president"..."The new party also lost the support of many antislavery Whigs when it nominated Van Buren, the former Democratic president who had been one of the leading organizers of the party of Andrew Jackson – the very party they thought had done so much to expand the power of slavery." 2. PBS "The Republican Party absorbed anti-slavery Whigs and most Know-Nothings." 3. Britannica "Disappointed by the ambivalent position of the Whig Party toward slavery, “Conscience” Whigs held a convention in August 1848 at Buffalo, New York. There they were joined by delegates from 17 states drawn from the Liberty Party and the antislavery faction of the New York Democrats, known as “Barnburners.” The Free-Soilers’ historic slogan calling for “free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men” attracted small farmers, debtors, village merchants, and household and mill workers, who resented the prospect of black-labour competition—whether slave or free—in the territories."

I have not found any context in sources 1, 2 or 3, that supports these claims. If I missed something, please point it out, preferably with explicit quotes and not personal "interpretations".

The RS I have quoted, as well as pre-existing sources in the Republican party article, explicitly use the terms successor and replacement. D.Michael F. Holt E.Daniel Walker Howe F.Steven Mintz

The above RS contradicts claims A, B, C (some example quotes are provided near the top of this section).

Regardless of whether there is a logical explanation or evidence that proves a predecessor and successor cannot "coexist" at the same time in various contexts, unless it specifically applies in the context of a reliable source on the subject of the relationship between the Whig and Republican parties, the point is moot. This evidence has not been provided.

In the same vein, a theory that the split within the Whig party over slavery somehow disqualifies their connection does not reconcile this edit without existing RS.

Lincoln is only one example of a former Whig that not only joined the Republican party, but helped shape it. William H. Seward, another former Whig turned Republican, may also be considered instrumental in helping to shape the Republican Party’s ideology and policies.

The original edit summary, "A direct lineage from the Whig Party singled out is not accurate, at least without the other parties mentioned.", incorrectly claims that the other parties were not mentioned. They were, in fact, mentioned and included an additional citation confirming the lineage from the Whig party to the Republican party. Most sources, including ones provided above by Toa, state that the Republican party absorbed northern Whig members.

See edit...
 * The Republican Party was formed as a northern party dedicated to antislavery, drawing from the antislavery wing of the Whig Party ("Conscience Whigs") and combining Free Soil, Liberty Party, and antislavery Democratic Party members.

Previous edits over the last 15 years have all included the Whigs in the info-box in some form. In early March 2024 they were condensed from the original format before Toa removed it, which included multiple parties as either "a merger of" or "predecessor(s)", presumably to save space in the info box. The original editor also meant to differentiate the Whig party, as predecessor, in their edit summary.

Leaving out the Whig party from the info-box gives the other arguably less notable parties UNDUE WEIGHT and perceivably over-represents, at best a minority view that has yet to be backed up by sources, that implies Whigs either didn't become part of the Republican party, or that they were not the generally accepted previous main counterpart to the Democrats, i.e. the predecessor.

As a result, this likely put's Toa's edit in the realm of violating NPOV. Any claims that the Whig party connection to the Republican party is somehow misinformation must be proven with explicit sources, not just personal opinions, theories and or correlations.

If an editor interprets sources differently than others, as to give weight to a seemingly minority view, it still does not negate the common mainstream interpretation of RS, especially without explicit sources to back it up.

If anyone still takes issue with this, it will go to NPOVN. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * While the facts you present have not been disputed, it is misleading to describe the relationship as the Republicans were preceded by the Whigs. Could you please explain what you mean by preceded by? TFD (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Cortador Rjensen GoodDay

Toa, you and TFD are the only editors here that seem strongly in favor of the previous edit out of six editors including myself. You removed it for the issue of being under predecessor, and now your agenda seems to be to keep the Whigs out of the info-box entirely, with no sources...Your revert will be noted in my forthcoming post at NPOVN. This has gone on for about 2 weeks with no explicit sources provided by you or TFD. Go ahead and enjoy the rest of your holiday. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand you clearly seem very passionate about this. However, I think you're extremely misguided here. Your edit now claims the party was founded by a merger of the Whigs and two other parties - which is demonstrably untrue, as the Republican Party and the Whig Party existed at the same time and contested elections, including the 1854–55 United States House of Representatives elections. I would be fine with removing this part of the inbox altogether, but I am not fine with incorrectly claiming the Whigs as the predecessor party - or, even more incorrectly, as having merged - with the Republican Party. This is misleading because not only did this not happen, southern Whigs - as I cited in sources - did not join the Republican Party. Unlike the other two movements - who did, in fact, broadly collapse entirely into the Republican fold - the Whigs did not.
 * To reiterate: I am fine with any solution that does not claim the Whigs were a predecessor party (which is untrue, as they existed at the same time) or merged into the GOP (which is untrue, as southern Whigs did not join the GOP, and the Constitutional Union Party also had a credible claim to Whig succession). <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 22:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't know where this fits, but I'll point it out again. The Whig & Republican parties co-existed for a few years. Thus the question - Was the Whig Party merely re-named the Republican Party. There were members of the Whig, Free Soil & (Northern) Democratic Party, which joined the Republican Party. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the term "predecessor" is defined as "re-naming" something. I've always understood the qualifier to be defined as a "replacement".
 * It seems fairly common for predecessors and successors to exist at the same time. When using the term to refer to an office or position, or a person, there is no requirement that states they may not exist concurrently, that I'm aware of. DN (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't need sources to exclude material, we need sources to include them. So far you have not provided persuasive sources that the Republicans were preceded by the Whigs. It's not even clear what you mean by preceded by, and it would be helpful if you provided your definition. TFD (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The onus isn't on me. DN (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the onus is absolutely on you given this is content to be included in the article. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It was already in the article. You removed it.
 * Your edit summary explains why you removed it claiming "A direct lineage from the Whig Party singled out is not accurate, at least without the other parties mentioned.", which was false.
 * The infobox said "The Republican Party was formed as a northern party dedicated to antislavery, drawing from the antislavery wing of the Whig Party ("Conscience Whigs") and combining Free Soil, Liberty Party, and antislavery Democratic Party members." DN (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The strong majority of Republicans, especially local state and national leaders, had been immersed in Whig Party for years--it was far more experience than anything else. I think Whiggery shaped the policies, rhetoric, newspapers, campaign styles and local organizational structure. When a Republican candidate gave a speech (or editor wrote a story) they relied on all their experience before hundreds of Whig audiences and tailored their words & policies accordingly. -By far the weakest impact came from the Know Nothing element.  Rjensen (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But were the Whigs uniformly joing the Republican Party? No. The two parties existed at the same time for several years. Southern Whigs - this was a national party, after all - did not join the Republican Party. As it is currently, the page misleadingly suggests to readers that the Whig Party merged into the Republican Party, when this is demonstrably untrue. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 12:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What sources say/prove it's demonstrably untrue? DN (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I cited them earlier in the discussion, but since you didn't notice, here's a few + more:


 * 
 * Britannica - "Formed in 1859 by former Whigs and members of the Know-Nothing Party, the party nominated John Bell for president and Edward Everett for vice president."
 * - "In May 1860 a group of former Whigs, whose national party had collapsed during the previous decade, organized the Constitutional Union Party."
 * PBS - "The Republican Party absorbed anti-slavery Whigs and most Know-Nothings... The Constitutional Union Party was the anti-extremist party, absorbing Southern Whigs who didn't want to vote Democratic and Northern Whigs who felt the Republicans were too radical. They united in order to block a Republican victory."
 * Encyclopedia Virginia - "The Whigs were too hopelessly split and, as a result, disappeared. Into that void, at least in the North, stepped the new Republican Party, which, in 1860, nominated for U.S. president Abraham Lincoln, a former Whig."
 * University of Michigan - "Northern and Southern Whigs promptly parted company and fled either to the Democrats or to new fusion parties like the Republicans"
 * Green, Don (Summer 2007). "Constitutional Unionists: The Party that Tried to Stop Lincoln and Save the Union"
 * There is also a wealth of sources on both the Whig and Constitutional Union party pages that recount how the Whigs fractured. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 00:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Identifying the term, "uniformly", as your additional qualifier, shines a better light on the perceived issue.
 * The longstanding edit did reference the Northern anti-slavery Whigs as "Conscience Whigs".
 * These quotes and sources don't seem to claim the Republican party wasn't also successor to the Whig party, or that the Constitutional Union Party, which quickly dissolved after a year, disqualified the Whig party as the predecessor to the Republican party.
 * The University of Michigan source says "The onset of the Kansas-Nebraska controversy in 1854 was the death knell of the Whigs, but not necessarily because (as is commonly assumed) Northern and Southern Whigs promptly parted company and fled either to the Democrats or to new fusion parties like the Republicans. (Actually, Southern Whigs were ready to join with Northern Whigs in denouncing Kansas-Nebraska as reckless expansionism until the famous Appeal of the Independent Democrats cast Kansas-Nebraska as a litmus-test issue on one's loyalty as a Southerner to slavery)"
 * Britannica says the Constitutional Union Party was a by-product of the same ideological and sectional antipathies that had led to the formation of the Republican Party in 1856.
 * However, with or without the qualifier, "uniformly", I don't see the quote or claim in this RS that "Republicans did not replace the Northern and Southern Whigs as the successor to the national stage, due to either the Whig party fracture, existing at the same time as the Whigs, because of the Constitutional Union Party, a lack of Whig party lineage, or as a result of the party split between North and South.
 * There may be consensus for qualifiers such as Northern, Conscience, or perhaps anti-slavery Whigs. DN (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support mentioning the Whigs in the "Merger of" part of the infobox. Sufficient sources have been provided to support the Whig Party as a predecessor to the GOP. Cortador (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What does "predecessor" mean here? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 12:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a dictionary definition. If someone disagrees with it, Wikipedia should still refer to the dictionary. DN (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the dictionary definition? TFD (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A dictionary is a listing of lexemes from the lexicon of one or more specific languages, often arranged alphabetically (or by consonantal root for Semitic languages or radical and stroke for logographic languages), which may include information on definitions, usage, etymologies, pronunciations, translation, etc. It is a lexicographical reference that shows inter-relationships among the data. IOW the opposite of a fictionary. DN (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the dictionary definition of predecessor? TFD (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In simple terms, something that precedes and is replaced. DN (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a tautological definition. Obviously a predecessor is something the precedes, just as a writer is someone who writes, or a singer is someone who sings. But what does "to precede" mean? TFD (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? DN (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a proposition below, to proceed past this issue. DN (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , did you mean to revert to the original version with predecessor listed? Your edit changed it back to my recent edit, not the longstanding one. DN (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Darknipples My bad. It should be restored to the long-standing version until the matter is resolved. Cortador (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I'll leave it up to the rest of yas (include/exclude), to decide. That being said, I recommend ya'll split the difference & use "Northern Whigs", as a predecessor. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with this. As long as it's clear it wasn't the entire Whig Party. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 22:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree if we have a consensus. Which sources do we want? Four seems a bit much. Cheers.
 * DN (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Should we count "leaners" as members?
I've noticed some content being added to this article that includes data from surveys of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. I don't think it would be appropriate to regard "leaners" in the same camp as party members - at least for statistical purposes, but I'd be interested to see how others think. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 00:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I would just include the number of registered republican voters (35,739,952). Also the info-box should not refer to them as members. Party members are expected to pay dues, attend meetings and support both their party and its ideology. For someone unfamiliar with U.S. politics, it would seem odd that both U.S. parties had higher membership levels than their counterparts in totalitarian countries, and many times more members than parties in other liberal democracies. TFD (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I have major issues with using party member data at all. Each state has different rules on party membership, and some have none at all. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 02:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, state parties are a incontiguous patchwork or rules and classifications. DN (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Libertarianism and neoconservatism as factions
Can these really be considered factions at this point? The article cited is about voters, not politicians, but there's not really any organized, large grouping of libertarian elected officials in the party. As far as I can tell, the Liberty Caucus has, at most, eight members, almost all of which overlap with the Freedom Caucus. There are certainly libertarian Republicans (Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, most notably), but I'm not sure this really qualifies as a faction - just like the Democratic Party infobox doesn't include mention of the similarly-sized Blue Dogs.

The same applies to neoconservatism. That has always been a nebulous term, mostly used in the Bush era to refer to a specific type of national security-focused Republican. This barely qualified as a faction then, and it certainly doesn't now.

I'd strongly consider removing both of them - or at least trying to clarify what we mean by "faction". <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Sources describing GOP libertarians as a faction: 1 2 3 4
 * Sources describing GOP neoconservatives as a faction: 1 2 3 4
 * Both factions have probably shrunken in favour of Trumpists/far-right Republicans in the last decade, but they have been described as factions over the last 20+ years. Cortador (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Going to review these sources piece by piece:


 * The Week piece is seemingly an op ed that uses the word "libertarian" once, broadly claiming Ron Paul and Rand Paul were gaining momentum, while referring to non-elected Tea Party organizers.
 * The Washington Examiner piece is an opinion piece from a paper we don't tend to use as an authoritative source of facts. The "faction" it refers to refers to is, even in the article itself, called "small and enduring" - and it notes less than a half-dozen elected members - Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, and Denver Riggleman - as well as a few who lost either primaries or generals - Mark Sanford, Eric Brakey, and Dave Brat. Is this really a faction?
 * US News and World Report (1) is an opinion piece. It does indeed refer to a "libertarian faction". This sole member of the faction this article mentions is Rand Paul. The actual Christie quote mentioned is not about libertarians, but Republicans skeptical of expansive national defense measures.
 * Fortune appears to be an opinion piece from 2016. It does indeed refer to a "reemerging neoconservative faction containing both Lindsay Graham and Jeb Bush". Graham dropped out before the primary, and Jeb! received 0.2% of the vote in the 2016 primary.
 * The Atlantic article is an opinion piece from 2012. It does refer to a "neoconservative faction is willing to expand budget deficits without apparent limit if it means they can insert the American military in Syria or Iran or whatever is next on their list." No members of this faction are named, aside from Rubio.
 * The Center for the National Interest piece is actually a foundation originally founded in the name of Richard Nixon that advocates a "realist foreign policy" and has strong partisan ties to the GOP.
 * The Nation piece is an opinion piece from a left-wing outlet written by a Bernie Sanders advisor. It does indeed refer to a "neoconservative faction" and the pejorative "neocon" - a lot - but it uses them broadly to refer to any Republicans who support military intervention. This source is unusable.
 * So basically, we have six op-eds here that don't actually back up either as being real factions. I'm not convinced. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you get the idea that these are all opinion pieces. Cortador (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because they are. And you've not dealt with any of the substantive concerns, either. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 21:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw that was a huge removal. Were you copyediting any of it? Which of the sources Cortador provided are ones used in the article? There seems to be quite a few in the article. DN (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've provided sources that state that these factions are indeed factions. Claiming that all sources are "opinion pieces" doesn't change that. Cortador (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It actually does matter. Opinion pieces aren’t really reliable sources for statements of fact - they’re just that, opinions. If the author is a subject matter expert, that changes things. But as I’ve explained - your sources here are utterly insufficient. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 23:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless of those, there seemed to be an awful lot of non-opinion pieces in that edit. Some of the citations needlessly overlap. The Rolling Stone citation probably isn't necessary. DN (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And how many of those refer to a “faction” or actually back up the claims given? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 01:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They don't become "opinion pieces" because you say so. Cortador (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the absolute low point of rhetorical debate - they’re not opinion pieces because I say so, they’re opinion pieces because they’re opinion pieces. Find a better argument because this is a waste of my time. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 04:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which of the articles are labelled as "opinion piece" or "commentary"? Cortador (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be charitable and assume maybe you haven't actually read the.m. However, the fact you're hyperfocused on them not being opinion pieces (they are) rather than responding to a single of the additional substantive complaints and issues I mentioned is unfortunate.


 * The Week - Listed as a "feature". You're welcome to take a look at other Features on the website.
 * Washington Examiner - The url literally tags this as "opinion" piece. If you actually read it, the tone is also clearly opinion as well.
 * US News and World Report - Literally tagged in URL as "opinion". If you actually read it, the tone is also clearly opinion as well.
 * Fortune - Style is short and clearly author opinion.
 * The Atlantic - Typical long-form opinion piece; the headline ("Marco Rubio's Imaginary Republican Party Is Fiscally Conservative") and writing style (use of "I", clear examples of personal political views ["the notion that Romney will govern as a limited government constitutionalist is laughable fantasy", "the sooner Tea Partiers learn to mistrust him the less likely they are to feel hurt and surprised when he betrays them", "He's the kind of "constitutionalist" that doesn't give a damn about the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments, so long as there's a religious extremist somewhere who wants to do us harm"] and are clearly that of author opinion.
 * The Nation - Clearly written as author opinion. Frequent use of negative, perjorative political labels ("neocon", use of "I", etc.)
 * I'm not going to debate the obvious fact of what these sources are. You haven't responded to a single one of my points, and if that continues, I will no longer be engaging with you on this, as doing so would be a waste of my time.<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless these six pieces (which you originally stated were all opinion pieces before moved on to some being in the "style" of op-eds) are actually labelled as such (which is not the case for the majority of them), declaring them "opinion pieces" based on them e.g. using words like "neocon" is original research. Cortador (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you... believe a piece can only be an "opinion" piece if it's explicitly labeled as such, and otherwise it's obviously news? Are you actually serious right now?
 * We're done here. You're obviously unwilling to actually engage on my substantive complaints, so I'll be starting an RfC shortly on removing both of these "factions" from the lede. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are enough libertarian or at least libertarian adjacent Republican voters and politicians that it would make since to describe it as a faction. I strongly suggest adding it back. 14 percent of Republican voters describe themselves as libertarian-conservatives. (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/17/upshot/six-kinds-of-republican-voters.html) CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They didn’t describe themselves as such. The NYT did a survey of voters and then split them into different camps based off an algorithm. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 16:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting me (I'll actually go and correct what it says in Libertarian Republican) however, the point still remains that while a relatively small faction, it is still worth noting. There are certainly more libertarian leaning Republicans than there are libertarian leaning Democrats. CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 14% isn't a lot, and that's with a generous grouping at that. Realistically, libertarians have very little impact in either party. They do have some organizations within the GOP, but those ones are tiny and tend to overlap with other movement conservative groups - a "libertarian-leaning" conservative might be anything from someone who loves Russia to someone who is okay with gay marriage to someone who likes weed. There's not really any full-spectrum libertarians. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether or not they specifically encompass a whole spectrum or just part of it seems like an additional qualifier relative to RS that is unfamiliar to me. DN (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't need "full-spectrum libertarians". We we need is sufficient sourcing that states that the GOP has a libertarian faction. Cortador (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, because something can be a "faction" and yet so small that mentioning them is WP:UNDUE. We need sources saying libertarians - not libertarian-leaners - are a faction, and that said faction plays a major role in the party. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 12:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Neoconservatism is absolutely a faction of the Republican Party. TheXuitts (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Social conservatism/Christian Right section is problematic
Out of the eight sources cited in this section, the use of the term "Christian Right" - or even labeling this as a faction - seems unfounded"
 * Divided We Fall - Uses the term, but website seems borderline unreliable.
 * Western Illinois Historical Review - Uses "Christian Right" to refer to Falwell-era politics. Paper itself may be unreliable; it "showcases the best student work produced in History classes at WIU each academic year"
 * The Atlantic - Uses the term once to refer to a specific movement that popped up in the 1970s]
 * Make America Christian Again: Christian Nationalism and Voting for Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election - Does not make any reference to a "Christian Right" faction, or even talk about much at all beyond voting patterns.
 * AP- Does not refer to the "Christian Right" or a "faction". Article is nebulous about "Christian nationalism", and notes that under some definitions, Joe Biden could fall into that category. Very insufficient for claims a substantial chunk of Republicans support "Christian nationalist" policies.
 * POLITICO - Polls of voters on whether the United States is a Christian nation (it isn't, but that's besides the point). Does not use "Christian Right", does not refer to a "faction".
 * Mediations of Social Life in the 21st Century - Refers to "social conservatism", not "Christian Right". No mention of a faction.
 * NBC News - Uses "Christian Right" and "white evangelicals" interchangeably. Does refer to "white evangelicals" as a "faction"

In short - this section is really problematic at the moment. Not only is the framing of the section itself off - most sources don't actually refer to a "faction", those that do refer to a specific time period in the 70s and 80s, and sources for claims that Republicans want to "to declare the U.S. a Christian nation, enforce Christian values, and overturn the separation of church and state" are based on opinion polling of voters. Only one of these sources is an academic resource, and that one seems to be homework from a History class. This lack of usage of "Christian Right" falls into my understanding, where the term really isn't commonly used today, with "social conservatism" being more common - and said politicians broadly being part of a conservative wing, rather than a separate faction of their own.

Frankly, the entire "factions" section likely needs an overhaul. I'm convinced similar issues and errors exist in the other sections, too, and I might start a review of those soon. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I recall a consensus among sources that the Republican party was more controlled by Christian right than other voting blocs aka factions, in the late 80s. The Reagan years. I haven't read the context of that section recently, but I'll take a look.
 * Here are some sources to consider.
 * 1. Harvard Political Review 2021
 * 2. Wapo 2021 via Steven M. Gillon
 * 3. Vox 2019
 * 4. Bill Moyers.com 2012 Timeline: The Religious Right and the Republican Platform
 * 5. Kimberly H. Conger The Christian Right in U.S. Politics 2019
 * Cheers. DN (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But would you describe them as factions? Trans activists have influence on the Democratic party, but I wouldn't describe them as a faction.
 * Who are the leaders of the Christian Right faction, what do they call their organization, what is its address, how many members does it have, which presidential candidate did they put forward? TFD (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It was the Moral Majority, which stopped being a relevant political force in the 1980s. Think Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Anita Bryant, etc. The closest thing you'd probably get today is the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is a legal advocacy group that doesn't have any formal ties to the GOP or endorse/field candidates. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 04:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's how RS seem to describe them, in addition to a spectrum of fringe to moderate leaders and groups. Trans people are still fewer than 1% of the world's population. Sources may refer to voting blocs, wings, coalitions, caucuses and movements also in lieu of the term faction. After conservative evangelicals left Carter's Dem party, some eventually went to Reagan, both had noted religious movements backing them.
 * 1.Axios 2024
 * 2.NPR 2024
 * 3.Time 2024
 * 4.CNN 2024
 * Current House speaker Johnson and Trumps support among evangelical republicans are likely considered notable candidates/endorsements. I didn't grab any citations for Mike, cheers. DN (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The only source here that uses the term Christian right is the Time piece, which refers to a "Christian right circuit". <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OAH mentions it several times. The sources I listed earlier can go at length, in particular Kimberly H. Conger seems to be an expert that wrote a book on CR, along with Marty Cohen, who wrote "Moral Victories in the Battle for Congress".
 * DN (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, I wouldn't get too hung up on the term "Christian right" specifically e.g. a number of sources also describe the faction as evangelical (1 2 3 4 5) or Christian conservative (1 2 3 4).  Cortador (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * we absolutely should be caught up on it, because it's the term used on this page. I suggested "social conservatism" as an alternative, which broadly incorporates the same movement without using language that is heavily tied to a movement from the 1980s. Christian right, religious right, social conservatives - it's all referring to the same thing, so why use the most antiquated language for it? We don't call fiscal conservatism "Reaganomics" on this page, for example, even though the two really are part of the same movement. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 12:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Social conservatism is not necessarily religious in nature. Some of the ideologies under this umbrella support variations of nationalism, or are in opposition to various social changes which they perceive as having negative effects. I think there is some overlap with declinism, in their glorification of the past. They envision a return to their perceived glory days. Dimadick (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the United States, it absolutely is. I mean, I can't say they don't exist, but I've never run into an... agnostic social conservative politician here. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * DN, only one of the sources you provided describe the Christian Right as a faction of the GOP. Nor do any of your sources describe the Christian Right as what most people would consider to be a political faction, i.e., and organized group that fights for power. Notice that it is rare for an incumbent president in either party to have a major challenger. Even when that happens, their following doesn't last beyond their candidacies. TFD (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that including the five I listed earlier? DN (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * "Article is nebulous about "Christian nationalism", and notes that under some definitions, Joe Biden could fall into that category." That is a much different topic. Christian nationalism typically refers to people or factions in support of the political influence of Christianity, in topics such as legislation. "A study which was conducted in May 2022 showed that the strongest base of support for Christian nationalism comes from Republicans who identify as Evangelical or born again Christians. Of this demographic group, 78% are in favor of formally declaring that the United States should be a Christian nation, versus only 48% of Republicans overall. Age is also a factor, with over 70% of Republicans from the Baby Boomer and Silent Generations supporting the United States officially becoming a Christian nation. According to Politico, the polling also found that sentiments of white grievance are highly correlated with Christian nationalism: "White respondents who say that members of their race have faced more discrimination than others are most likely to embrace a Christian America. Roughly 59% of all Americans who say white people have been discriminated against ... favor declaring the U.S. a Christian nation, compared to 38% of all Americans." Dimadick (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a different topic. It the definition is so broad that Joe Biden could qualify, it's hardly a useful one. And if you read the article - "Evangelical or born-again Christians — a category that crossed denominational lines, said Telhami — were most likely to support the idea of the U.S. becoming an officially Christian nation. Among Republicans, more than three-fourths (78%) of those who identified as evangelical or born again favored declaring the United States officially Christian. Among Democrats, 52% of those who identify as evangelical or born again agreed." Does this mean Democrats have a faction of Christian nationalists? Of course not.
 * More to the point: what "Christian nationalist" faction - distinct from any other - exists in the House? Honestly this doesn't even make a ton of sense. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do reliable sources describe Biden as a Christian nationalist? Unless that's the cause, this is a pointless comparison. Cortador (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * From the AP article: "Six in 10 U.S. adults said the founders intended America to be a Christian nation, according to a 2022 Pew Research Center survey. About 45% said the U.S. should be a Christian nation. Four in five white evangelical Protestants agreed with each assertion. By some measures, Democratic President Joe Biden might be seen in that category, citing the importance of his Catholic faith and calling for God’s blessings on America and its troops". And like I mentioned, the source above notes that a majority of Democratic evangelical/born again Christians agree with declaring the United States a Christian nation. Of course, the reasonable solution here is not to say Democrats have a "Christian nationalist" faction, but to simply acknowledge that surveys of voters are weird, and maybe we shouldn't be declaring party factions off of them. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 16:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So no source actually describes Joe Biden as a Christin nationalist then, and this comparison is indeed pointless. Cortador (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The source actually does. And it mentions evangelicals in the Democratic Party having a majority viewpoint on this too. Again - the rational response here is not to say Democrats have a christian nationalist wing, it's to question the wisdom of relying on opinion polls to determine partisan factions. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. All it does state that Biden "might" be seen as someone advocating the US to be a Christian nation. Cortador (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's an opinion worth noting, it can simply be attributed. DN (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Religous nationalism is a term that can mean different things according to context. It's most common meaning is applied to countries where ethnicity is identified with religion, such as in Northern Ireland or Lebanon. The person doesn't have to be particularly religious. The best example in the U.S. was nativism, where Protestants saw themselves as the only true Americans. For anyone who watched Gangs of New York, Bill the Butcher (who was a Republican) was a prime example. TFD (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen Gangs of New York, but the New York-based Democratic organization Tammany Hall consisted primarily of Irish Catholics. The Democratic Party has a centuries-old connection to Catholicism in this region. Dimadick (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My point is that the U.S. has a long history of religious ethnic nationalism including nativists, Know Nothings and Klansmen. Basically they were mostly descended from older immigration waves and resented never immigrants from Ireland and Southern and Eastern Europe. But they expressed these ethnic identities in terms of religion: Protestant and Catholic. Their nation IOW was white, Anglo-Saxon (and Scottish) Protestant America. Anyone else wasn't an American. But they didn't have a religious agenda, any more than Tamany Hall did. TFD (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe not in those days, but following the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision, the Republican platform called for “a position on abortion that values human life.” It also asserts that “Our great American Republic was founded on the principle: One nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.”
 * 1980. A year after Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority, the Republican platform contains only one reference to God, but an entire section on abortion.
 * 1988. This was the year that right-wing televangelist Pat Robertson was a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination.
 * 1992 The year of Pat Buchanan’s infamous “culture wars” convention speech, the party unveils a platform with four references to God and seven references to “family values.” This is the first Republican party platform to address sexual preference, opposing the inclusion of sexual preference as a protected minority, rejecting any legislation which legally recognizes same-sex marriage and supporting the continued exclusion of homosexuals from the military.
 * 1996 This platform goes a step further, endorsing the Defense of Marriage Act.
 * In 2007, the year Time Magazine declared “The Religious Right’s Era Is Over,” the Republican party platform contains two references to God and reaffirms its past positions on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and gays in the military but does not expand on them.
 * 2016. Trump returned the White House to the Republican party along with a wave of Christian nationalism and the end of Roe V. Wade. DN (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Roe V. Wade wasn't repealed until 2022, not 2016. Unless I am misunderstanding the context and your meaning is that Trump and the Republican Party rose among a wave of Christian nationalism with the "intention" to repeal it. Completely Random Guy (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have specified, "eventual" end of Roe. DN (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How is opposition to legal abortion religious nationalism? As I pointed out, religious nationalism is ethnic nationalism where the group defines itself in terms of religion. So for example, Protestant Americans with Northern European ancestry distinguished themselves from Catholic Americans with Eastern and Southern European ancestry. The religious right doesn't do that. TFD (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support changing Christian Right to social conservatism, as yes the Republican Party is very strong in the Bible Belt (the South), the Mormon Corridor (Utah and neighboring areas), and the less religious and more diverse Great Plains & Mountain States. The Republican Party does strongly among Whites without college degrees, who tend to be more socially conservative and live in rural areas.
 * But Republicans also support the secular issue of gun rights, which is part of social conservatism. The Republican Party could be described as socially conservative on say abortion and LGBT issues, but its social conservatism also extends to areas like illicit drug laws (i.e. marijuana) and gun rights. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm a little lost as to why gun rights, secular or not, are of substance. CR seems relegated to a time period in the party's history, see my comment earlier roughly '80-07. DN (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Christian right was chosen as it was a broad term that described the presence of right-wing Christian groups within the party with a variety of views, including social conservatism and Christian nationalism. It is also a historical term and is also used on the separate Factions in the Republican Party page. Each faction we discuss in this section has multiple ideologies under them. They are not uniform. The current grouping of the factions section represents the best approximation of the factional groupings in the Republican Party for organizational purposes as is widely reported by RS. RS are not uniform in how they name the Christian right, and often simply describe the ideologies that fall under this category. BootsED (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Christian nationalism is not actually a faction, and can barely even be qualified as a thing. What Christian nationalist organizations exist within the Republican Party? Is there a Christian nationalist caucus in the House? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I never said Christian nationalism was a faction. It is an ideology within the Christian right faction, just as social conservatism is an ideology, not a faction. See my talk post below titled "Clarification regarding factions, ideologies, and the infobox" on this. BootsED (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment: Infobox ideologies
Should the infobox include "libertarianism" and "neoconservatism" as ideologies? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Tagging and  from previous discussion.

Poll
Yes for neoconservatism, no for libertarianism. Libertarianism opposes police, fundamentally opposes borders, supports right to abortion, supports Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, and other Queer rights. This does not describe any faction of the Republican party. Whereas, the GOP does have a neoconservative faction, it was even the majority faction for a while. A Socialist  Trans Girl  22:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No - Neither is a substantial faction of the Republican Party on the same level as say conservatism, the Christian Right, Trumpism, or even centrism/moderates. Neoconservatism is mainly about foreign policy, and the Republican Party's Liberty Caucus is tiny at just 9 members (out of 435).
 * No - While elements of either ideology overlap with the existing conservative faction, neither group has any real organizational prominence within the Republican Party. Existing sources clearly do not place them on the same level as conservatives or social conservatives, and the only explicitly libertarian faction in the House - the Liberty Caucus - has less than 10 members, almost all of whom overlap with other hardline conservative caucuses. Neoconservatism lacks any caucus in either house, or any organizational prominence in the party. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree with this view of current trends, nonetheless the history of these factions within the Republican party and their impact still has weight and should remain in some form. DN (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No American conservatism is defined as a mix of libertarianism, traditionalism and anti-communism, with each person placing a greater or lesser emphasis on each of the three aspects. Also, neoconservatism is merely a term to refer to a group of people who began as liberal Democrats, became conservative Republicans and now appear to have moved back to the Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. For the same reasons stated above - no evidence has been brought forwards as to their relevance.Carlp941 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. For such a long-established party, the 'core' defining ideologies should be what is in the infobox. No evidence is provided that these are 'core' beliefs now or in the past. As others say, this doesn't prohibit coverage of these aspects within the article. Also broadly agree with the other reasons offered above.Pincrete (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes for neoconservatism, No for libertarianism. I'm not sure why the existing voters seem to ignore that there's still a lot of neocons in the GOP. John Bolton, Liz Cheney, Tom Cotton, and Nikki Haley all have neoconservative tendencies and/or supported by neoconservative organizations; even if they do not identify themselves as neoconservatives, given the political causticity of the term. Individuals who are described as neoconservatives absolutely still exist in substantial electoral and official presence in the GOP, regardless of whether or not they are the defining force of the Republican party. I will concede that the libertarian presence in the GOP is almost certainly minimal at this point, however. Not a label anyone of power or popularity uses for themself. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, while I agree with DN that each party/faction carries WP:WEIGHT on the topic of the Republican Party, I disagree that their weight should carry to the infobox. That would give them undue weight. Pistongrinder (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * lien towards: Yes for neoconservatism, No for libertarianism based on my knowledge of the party.  However, we don't report what editors think, we need sources to establish (or not) either designation.  I see the sources box below is empty.  Please fill it and discuss whether those sources are or not reliable, and I will reconsider.  I came here because of WP:FRS  --David Tornheim (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Seems a little odd to not mention the libertarian faction in the info box. (Maybe as a "historical" faction/influence?) The economic policies of the GOP in the modern era has largely been defined by influences like Milton Friedman. I know (as of late) there has been protectionism and so on....but I am thinking of the last 40-50 years.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes to libertarianism. Include neoconservative implicitly under conservative banner. Pretty remarkable that many of the editors here are suggesting removing libertarianism from the infobox. It has historically (and even presently) exerted a profound role on the right in the United States to an extent found almost nowhere else. Has no one here heard of Milton Friedman? Friedrich Hayek? Ronald Reagan saying that the heart of conservatism was libertarianism? It is indisputable that libertarianism is notable enough for a lead mention. Let's not let 5 year trends completely rewrite the infobox. This is a classic case of WP: RECENTISM. KlayCax (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose to including any ideology. Assigning any ideology to the infobox is problematic because it has significantly changed during the existence of the Party. It is very different right now from something it was even 20 years ago. Right now, this is pretty much just MAGA, Donald Trump's party, Alt-right, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No doubts, they are not libertarians. But neocons? Yes, but this is thing of the past. MAGA and alt-right are very different. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion
Both would apply during certain periods historically, but they have been less active relative to other groups recently. Senorangel (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Pointless RfC: There's consensus for the ideologies from the article in the infobox, and no evidence has been brought forward that this consensus has changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs)
 * The consensus was about including an ideology section, not about which ideologies are to be included. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The consensus is about including those from the article body in the infobox. Changing the infobox is against that consensus. Cortador (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. I suggest you actually engage in the process here rather than getting bogged down in a procedural debate. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have not provided evidence that this consensus has changed. Cortador (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Souces for "right-wing"
Per discussion, "right-wing" has been added. However, this consensus is pending reliable sources. I have removed the sources just added by for the following reasons:
 * Dictionary.com - Does not back up claim; it says Republicans are associated with the "right" and Democrats with the "left", but also that "politics is always far more complicated than the labels we give to it—and each other".
 * Pew Research - Survey of voters, not a discussion of the party. Does not use the word "right-wing" once.
 * New York Times - Source does not back up claim, as it says that "right-wing Republicans" are a minority in their party, not the majority.
 * Crikey - Does not even refer to the Republican Party as "right-wing"
 * NBC News - Refers to both "center-right", "hard right", and "far-right" factions; does not use "right-wing" once or refer to the party as such.
 * Democracy Journal - Opinion piece. Source does not refer to the Republican Party as "right-wing", and is in fact an advocacy piece for proportional representation.
 * NBC News - Source does not refer to Republicans as "right-wing", but does refer to a "right-flank that is more than willing to play hardball to bend the rest of the conference to its will". This implies the right is a minority, not a majority. It also mentions a centrist faction.
 * Vox - An opinion piece from Zack Beauchamp, a writer most known for believing there is a bridge between Gaza and the West Bank. Vox itself is likely not a sufficient source for a major claim, but Beachamp certainly is no subject-matter expert.

None of these sources back up the claim, so I've removed them. In fact, many seem to suggest the "right-wing" is a minority - this needs to be considered in the future. At this point, we have a talk page consensus in search of sources, which is never a good thing. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 22:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes need academic sources that go into detail and explain things... and not connected to the United States directly..like... Moxy 🍁 04:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do they need to be not connected to the United States? That's silly, and I'm fairly certain we don't apply a smilar standard to Europe. And I'd also question the idea of trying to pin any American party based on voters - that's an extremely Eurocentric view of how political parties function. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 05:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just better to get internatinal experrts that study this on a world level. There are many more but I suspect it will never fly anyways as there is an odd disconect in US politcal articles here on Wikipedia. Moxy 🍁 13:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's not really a “global spectrum”, though, and both US parties evolved out of liberal movements, not the socialism or conservatism of Europe. Not saying international sources don’t matter, but they don’t have a special perspective to offer or anything - judging either party by, say, German standards makes as little since as judging French political parties by American standards. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would expect in reading info-boxes that the words for ideology and political position would mean the same thing, regardless of country. It's odd to say that because both U.S. parties are liberal and centrist, that we should use different terminology in order to distinguish them, even if the terms we use are not comparable to politics in the rest of the world. TFD (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * These are the sources the article had when it last included a position. If you believe that sourcing wasn't strong enough, the time to bring that up as the now-closed discussion above. Cortador (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Consensus can and does change, and I reject these specific sources being a consensus. But more importantly, no amount of consensus can demand sources be used if they don’t back up the cited claim. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The consensus was established less than three days ago. You have not demonstrated that it has changed. Cortador (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As several have mentioned (and the closer has confirmed), the consensus you keep pointing to does not rule that that these refs support the text.The WP:V policy is not over-rideable by local consensus. The WP:BURDEN on anyone wishing to include content is to have sources that support the content, not just that many people would like the content included. There is a legitimate dispute about sourcing. Go find sources. DMacks (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion was based on a previous addition of the position to the article, which did include sources. If someone thought the sourcing was insufficient, they could have brought it up. Cortador (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support right-wing, with center-right (i.e. Republican Governance Group, Problem Solvers Caucus) and far-right (i.e. Freedom Caucus). Also the Republican Party is affiliated with the European Conservatives and Reformists Party, which is also described--on its article--as right-wing with center-right and far-right factions.
 * https://ecrparty.eu/about/#parties JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Republican Governance Group is centrist. So really what you’re arguing for is “center to far right. What sources do you have to back up your position, as well?
 * Also, it’s worth noting ECR is an “affiliate” and the ECR is itself tied to the center-right IDU. So not really compelling. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 06:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added the political position with two academic and one news source. I am not going to get into debates about what right-wing means, our specific context, or any other needling about details. It is exhausting and not productive. The consensus is to add right wing as a political position with reliable sources backing that up. We should do that as soon as possible.
 * I agree that the initial sourcing was thin. I have added better sources, quoted and bolded the relevant texts that I believe call the Republican Party right wing in some form. You are welcome to disagree, but I ask that you leave the political position up if you do. I do not think we should not ignore consensus to quibble over specifics. Carlp941 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Carlp941Thanks for the addition with the excerpt - even though it has already been removed again. Here's a few more academic sources that is also mentioned below: 1 2 3 4
 * I think those (or even a selection) is sufficient to support the position. Cortador (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Policy Studies sources: I suggest to cite this excerpt: "From a political sociological perspective, Robert Horwitz posits how the anti-establishment right-wing is now the driving force behind Republican conservatism and the GOP." Cortador (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Consensus was to add it, if there are reliable sources. There’s substantial debate as to sourcing. This is the problem with getting a bunch of editors to agree to something without actually having the sources in the first place. Other editors have noted something similar, and it’s clear no stability has come from the consensus.
 * As for Policy Studies - that doesn’t say “the Republican Party is right-wing”, which is what we need - and in the cited case, it’s one guy’s opinion. It might be useful in conjunction with other sources or for the populist faction, however. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added an academic source and a reliable news source that unambiguously call the Republican Party a right wing party. That meets what the consensus asks for. David McKay is a scholar in government at the University of Essex and politico is considered a reliable source. Can we please move on? Carlp941 (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ll have to review them, but at first glance your first source actually refers to them as far-right, which is certainly a claim. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You asked for a reliable source that says "the Republican Party is right wing." The academic source says the GOP is unambiguously right wing. The politico source says that Rebublican party is a right wing party drifting rightward. Both sources are written by academics who specialize in politics and political history. The articles are about the Republican party's political ideology specifically. And again, they plainly state what the GOP's political position is. What more could you possibly want here? Carlp941 (talk) 20:53, 13 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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)

Clarification regarding factions, ideologies, and the infobox
There seems to be some confusion regarding the ideologies and factions section of the infobox. When I edited this page a few months ago, I made sure that the ideology simply listed "Conservatism" while the factions were linked to the Factions in the Republican Party (United States) page. Over time (I have not been looking at this page for a while now), it appears that some factions have been removed and now link to ideologies rather than the factions page itself.

I think a big confusion on this and other pages is that the specific section of the infobox we are debating is itself called "Ideologies," however, there exists a sub-section within "Ideologies" called "Factions." Ideologies that the Party follows should be listed above the line that lists "Factions." As of the time of this post, only conservatism is, and the rest are not. I am also seeing confusion in other comments over the exact definition of what factions are within the Party (which is reasonable), but also some confusion regarding terminology and using the terms faction and ideology interchangeably which complicates the debate.

For a refresher, there are multiple factions of the Republican Party, of which each faction has a multitude of ideologies within it. For example, the Christian right (a faction) ranges from social conservatism to christian nationalism (ideologies). However, as listing all ideologies followed by each faction in the infobox would be overkill, it was my intention to simply list the major ideology of the Party, that is, conservatism, while the factions would all link to the established factions listed on the factions page, where more granular detail about the range of ideologies within these factions could be discussed. BootsED (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree the articles need more consistency. DN (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There was a poll on this last year. The result was implemented as basically having the factions listed in the article listed below "Conservatism" in the infobox. At this point, we should consider simply listing "Conservatism" as the majority ideology in the infobox an leave it at that, provided consensus for that is established.
 * That said, as suggested, I think the way forward is to permanently link the factions in this article to the ones in Factions in the Republican Party (United States). Since that is the main article about the factions, this article should always include a brief version of the factions listed there for internal consistency. However, this will likely require a cross-article consensus established via RfC to avoid chaos. Cortador (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Multiple users have been attempting to have a civil discussion with you. Can you show any evidence for consensus in your action? I believe you have acted largely unilaterally and would suggest ceasing all such arguments until a common ground can be reached. The Sea Lion King (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * At this point it is an IDHT problem. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 12:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe. DN (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Everyone in the party today can be considered a conservative almost by definition. But there is no consensus on what if any factions the party has. TFD (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Cortador once again adding bad sources
I am getting slightly sick of having to do this, but has once again added bad sources and is now violating BRD in order to force his changes onto the article.

He's added three sources:
 * "The Republican Voter: A Populist Radical Right Voter Like Any Other?" - Source in World Affairs. This seems like a credible outlet, although I don't know how reputable it is.
 * "Framing Identity Politics: Right-Wing Women as Strategic Party Actors in the UK and US" in Journal of Women & Public Policy - The problem here is the source does not appear to actually say the Republican Party is right-wing. While this is is mentioned - in passing - in the abstract (along with the UK Conservatives, who are generally not regarded as right-wing), the article is specifically about right-wing women in the Republican Party - which is not quite the same thing. A passing reference in an abstract is not sufficient to back up a claim.
 * An article from Salon - Per WP:RSPSS, "Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed."

I removed the last two sources, as they are questionable. I did not remove the first one. has reverted this. I am once again urging to stop edit-warring, stop forcing their changes, and actually discuss things with editors here. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * World affairs is a peer-reviewed academic journal. The Journal of Women & Public Policy is also a peer-reviewed academic journal, and refers to the Republican Party as a "major" US right-wing party (on page 5 of the article). The article also refers to the Tories as a major UK right-wing party (and so does their Wikipedia article here, backed up by a plethora of sources, many of them academic). Since you missed all of that, I don't believe you actually read the article properly. Salon being biased doesn't make it unreliable, especially not if the statement is also backed by academic sources.
 * Don't accuse me of edit warring if you are removing sources that are peer-reviewed academic articles supporting an inclusion that has explicit talk page consensus. Cortador (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely going to accuse you of edit-warring if you decide to break WP:BRD on a page with a 1RR. Your continual IDHT behavior of "there's a talk page consensus" to justify whatever changes you make has been commented on by numerous editors across multiple pages at this point. I would strongly suggest you actually engage with editors in discussion here - and more discussion than "there's a talk page consensus". Back up your claims.
 * Even if I take your word on the other piece (the way you describe it, does indeed seem like a passing mention) - Salon is absolutely not an academic source, and it is ludicrous to use it as one. There is a reason this source is listed under perennial sources as needing direct attribution for any claims made. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I never claimed Salon was academic. I have specifically backed up my claims.
 * Why do you have to "take my word" on that article? I gave you a specific page number. Did you not actually read the article? Cortador (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a paywalled academic journal article. Can you cite the relevant passage, or at least include it in the citation? Because you cited the entire article (pages 91-118) when you added it. It's generally common practice to include a page number for the specific claim cited - or even better, a direct quotation from the source. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove a source from the article and claimed it didn't support the statement it is supposed to support if you didn't actually read the source? Cortador (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I read what I could of it - the abstract. Why would you add a source, but not list the page the claim you cited is from? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because that's not required for articles, as the page you linked to states - listing sections is sufficient.
 * Why did you label that source as "bad" and removed it without reading it? Cortador (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You didn't list a section. You cited the page numbers that encompass the entire article. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is part of an issue. That is the section.
 * Why did you label that source as "bad" and removed it without reading it? Cortador (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You cited the entire article. Next time, cite the specific page(s) the claim is supported by. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Article don't need page numbers.
 * Why did you claim the source didn't support what I was supposed to if you didn't read it? Cortador (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a 20+ page journal piece. Please keep this in mind for the future. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to actually read a source before you call it "bad". Please keep this in mind for the future. Cortador (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am getting exhausted by your disruptive editing and discussion style. Read sources before you discredit them, this is a basic tenet of good faith. Carlp941 (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * UTC)
 * I’m sorry you feel that way. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am sorry - I got too heated there. My comment about fully reading sources stands, but I am striking my personal attack. Carlp941 (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of academic sources
@ KlayCax You removed a few sources from the article because you considered them "poor". These are peer-reviewed academic sources. What is your issue with these sources? Cortador (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Using a single article that was published in World Affairs (with 3 citations + opinionated: read the article) to unilaterally delete neoconservatism and libertarianism from the infobox is nowhere near enough in terms of quality. The source also doesn't call the Republican Party a "right-wing" party. It calls it a radical right party: which implies that it is on the far-right. If anything, that means that "right-wing to "far-right" should be placed in the infobox. (This is despite other sources saying that many Republicans are "center-right" to "center-left".) The only possible position that makes sense in the infobox is big tent. Since the United States has a unique party system that can't discipline "rogue" party members.
 * Neoconservatism dominated under George W. Bush. Right-wing populist views became revitalized within the party during the presidency of Donald Trump. Who knows what will come next? This is all WP: RECENTISM.
 * It's particularly ludicrous to remove libertarianism, considering the deep influence that Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and others had on the party for decades. Right now: they're not even mentioned. KlayCax (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's also dozens of articles in the past five years indicating that libertarians are a substantial faction of the party. KlayCax (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @KlayCax I'm talking about this removal. That source was there to confirm that the GOP is a right-wing party, and has nothing to do with the neoconservative/libertarian discussion. Cortador (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's not a consensus in the literature, . If we're going to base it off of that particular article, then it should say far-right, as it compares the party to Alternative for Germany.
 * Note that the article is titled: The Republican Voter: A Populist Radical Right Voter Like Any Other?  KlayCax (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not based on a particular article. It is based on these sources: 1 2 3 4 5
 * BootED removed a few of them accidentally yesterday (see here), and Toa Nidhiki05 removed another one despite admitting they did not actually read it (see here). "Right-wing" is a broad term. A party that is a radical right-wing party is still a right-wing party. The other sources also describe it as such. Cortador (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's indisputable that the Republican Party is right-wing. The problem is that, due to WP: PRECEDENT, people see that as: 1.) "Left of far-right" 2.) Implying that there isn't centrist/center-right factions.
 * If we're forced to add a "position" in the infobox: it should be "big tent". KlayCax (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that several of the sources has added to try and prove the party is right-wing actually define the right-wing as either a minority in the party, or only define the Republicans broadly as the "party of the right" - while defining Democrats as the opposite. There's clear disagreement in the academic world over how to define the party, which means we shouldn't be trying to singularly define it either. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting this specific article also doesn't actually go into great detail on the party itself. It's mostly trying to compare AfD and Trump voters - most of the claims it makes about the Republican Party are pure opinion, it frequently misspells Republican candidate names ("Keri Lake" and "Doug Mastrianois"), defines conservative Republicans Jeff Flake and Adam Kinzinger as "moderates" solely due to opposing Trump, and it ends in an explicit call to action to reject Republican candidates in the future. I'm with here - this shouldn't be used. It's subpar.
 * Also, I will ask again - cite specific page numbers. It is not acceptable to cite an entire dozen(s) page paper for a single claim. You have been editing long enough that you should know this. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't need detail. It needs to be 1) reliable and 2) verify the content in the article.
 * I've already given you the page number above. You could have added that instead of removing the source, and you are using this as a distraction from the fact that you removed the source without reading it. You still haven't explained why you thought that was acceptable. Cortador (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We should be providing sources that lead our readers to academic debates. These non-expert opinions of our editors don't help our readers at all. Moxy 🍁 16:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Do we need a moratorium on faction changes?
Trying to decentralize discussion again. It is exceptionally clear at this point that the "factions" label under the Infobox is causing a substantial amount of dialogue, including frequent edits. Clearly, it's no longer stable. Do we need to just temporarily remove this section while everyone discusses what should belong there - or at the very least, remove the contentious parts? There doesn't seem to be any debate over Centrism as a faction, at minimum, and there seems to be broad agreement about some form of social conservatism and populism being there.

I would personally strongly consider moving "social conservatism" out of factions and into the main ideology. Place it under "Conservatism", perhaps alongside fiscal conservatism or something. It's clearly a core part of party ideology, imo. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support removing all the factions except conservatism--fiscal and social--, Trumpism (Trump has been the nominee in 2016, 2020, and 2024 with plenty of sources for the faction), and centrism in the infobox, and instead just add a link to the factions page. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would reject the fiscal conservatism ideology being out in the infobox. Fiscal conservatism is a branch of conservatism, it is not a faction in and of itself. Republicans have not been fiscally conservative for a very long time. The source that is used to back up the claim of fiscal conservatism does not back up the claim of the party being fiscally conservative, but actually states it has moved away from attempts to restrict spending. Likewise, the source that is being used to support the idea of social conservatism actually says the opposite, and how Christian nationalism is taking over the GOP. Currently, the page looks as it did in 2023 when a previous talk page post (now archived) discussed needing to change the list as they were no longer up to date. BootsED (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Christian nationalism is not, in fact, taking over the GOP. What Christian nationalist organizations have power in the party? Are there Christian nationalist caucuses in Congress? Fiscal conservatism, in comparison, is considered to be one of the parts of the "three-legged stool" of conservatism, along with social conservatism. I frankly don't even think social conservatives are a "separate faction", or at least that there's evidence they are separate from the rest of the conservative movement. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you hit the nail on the head. Social conservatism and fiscal conservatism are parts of conservatism. What gives them any more right to be included in the infobox as a faction than national conservatism or any other sub-ideology? There are too many to list. That's why the factions section should list broad, overarching factions of the party, not individual ideologies. Fiscal conservatism belongs as a mention that within the conservative faction that some members are fiscal conservatives. The Republican Party writ large is not fiscally conservative. That assertion is simply false. BootsED (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So the question would be, what's the difference between factions and ideologies? Should we just list the ideologies of "Conservatism" and/or "Centrism" (not "Trumpism", as there's nothing really ideological about loyalty to a figure), link the congressional caucuses (Republican Governance Group/Republican Main Street Partnership, Freedom Caucus, Republican Study Committee) under "factions", and call it a day? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The fiscal and social conservative factions are different, though most Republican politicians are both socially and fiscally conservative.
 * The fiscally conservative faction comes mainly from support by the upper class (i.e. richest top 1%), business advocacy groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and organizations like the Club for Growth. These individuals and organizations mainly focus on fiscal issues. Business advocacy groups generally don't take stances on social issues.
 * The socially conservative faction includes the Christian right (i.e. anti-LGBT rights and anti-abortion), gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association, opposition to immigration, etc. This can be explained by geographic cleavages such as the urban-rural political divide and Bible Belt. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Something like this could maybe work, although it does not include social conservatism. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Wow! That's a very cool way to organize the page! However, I agree that not including social conservatism would be problematic as it is a big part of the Republican identity. This brings us back to the problem of wanting to include all factions/ideologies in the infobox, which would simply be too much. Maybe we need to consider what RS state the largest factions are? Again, this will be problematic as neoconservatism and right-libertarianism are parts of the Republican Party as well. Would they fall under conservatism or not? Questions. BootsED (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, incorporating the other parts of the party may be challenging. That's the downside with this organizational structure - parts of the party that aren't clearly organized into factional groups, or whose membership is split across groups (libertarian Rs broadly exist in all three groups, for example, neoconservatives institutionally present in both centrist and conservative groups, social cons that are in the conservative and populist wings, etc), won't be as visible. Maybe there's a way to get around that?
 * There's also a potential concern of overweighting the House in particular - however, the Senate does not really have factions, and each state party is itself a broad, diverse entity with varying factions. So since this is about the federal party, the House is probably our best vehicle to get at this factional divide. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don's see these various groups as "factions." They are not competing for control of the party and not competing with each other. Many congressmen for example get both anti-tax and pro-religious PACs supporting them.
 * It is worth noting that from the beginning the party has had Wall St and Main St wings. While most of their congress people have been Main St., the presidential candidate has always been Wall St., except for Goldwater and Trump. But it's too nuanced to put into an info-box.
 * All parties have left and right wings. But they are not really factions unless they organize and compete and there is a clear division between them. TFD (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose because this just shows various U.S. House caucuses below the three main factions--centrists, conservatives (fiscal and social), and Trumpists/right-wing populists. I would just stick to splitting conservatism into fiscal and social, along with centrist and right-wing populism/Trumpism. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the House factions are the closest to "factions" you can actually get in this party, really. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Current page status
After discussion and back-and-forth with several editors, I am quite happy with the current faction status of the page. For those unaware, I have copied them below.

As discussed with Toa Nikha05, fiscal and social conservatism would fall under the Conservatism label, along with all other ideologies that end with "conservatism." Going to the conservatism page also conveniently lists all the sub-factions of conservatism on it, including neoconservatism. With this in mind and noting the undue template on the neoconservative faction section, it might be prudent to remove neoconservatism as a standalone "faction" seeing as it is a sub-faction of the larger conservative one. To be in line with this new organization, the Trumpist faction would be renamed right-wing populism, with Trumpism being noted within the section as a type of "also known as and related to" reference. Libertarianism would be renmamed to right-libertarianism to differentiate it from the libertarianism practiced by the Libertarian Party.

The question remains on what to do with the Christian right. I personally am unsure whether to keep it listed as a separate faction knowing the influence they have on the party. I know other editors have discussed renaming them social conservatives, but this would fall afoul of keeping all sub-conservative factions under the conservative label. Also, even the page for Social conservatism in the United States lists the Christian right as "one of the largest forces of social conservatism." Thoughts? BootsED (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I still strongly believe we shouldn't use "right-libertarianism". The term "libertarian" has a specific meaning in American English, and the "right" bit would genuinely confuse people while arguably being an WP:ENGVAR violation. We could always pipe to just Libertarianism in the United States, while is more applicable anyway.
 * As for the Christian right, I would agree with removing it. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 02:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I added in the Christian right for the time being as we discuss it and as it's still listed in the factions section. I also found several high-quality references from the related page that I believe would bolster the case for its inclusion. Frankly, I believe that some mention of the Christian right is warranted due to their influence in the party. Let me know what you think. BootsED (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. DN (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Christen right should be included, though the body text should probably also mention that this is a broad term that includes e.g. Christian nationalists. Cortador (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I oppose an WP:UNDUE mention of "Christian nationalism" - as I've shown in other discussions, it's misleading, not really a thing, and by some definitions could include a majority of Democratic evangelicals as well as Joe Biden. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Christian Nationalism is a pretty loaded term. Do you have some academic sources that examine CN in the GOP? Otherwise I'd oppose adding it at all. Even if we do add it, I'd like it attributed to the author of the source, as I am pretty sure a majority of scholars dont view the GOP as Christian Nationalist. Feel free to prove me wrong here. Carlp941 (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's currently included in the body of the text and also mentioned if one heads to the Christian right page. BootsED (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I explained those, these same polls show sizeable amounts of Democratic voters, and even Joe Biden, might qualify as "Christian nationalists". <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 01:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I added some more sources that state that how Christian nationalism pronounced on the right among the Republican Party. Joe Biden is not a Christian nationalist. BootsED (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the claim that "Christian nationalism is the base of the Republican Party" backed up by academic consensus? That seems fairly bold. The source actually says "White Christian Nationalists", which seems incredibly close to an ideology we've all agreed isn't appropriate here. The polling that was demonstrated earlier certainly doesn't show this, at least. And again - the source I showed earlier indicates a majority of Democratic evangelicals agree with "Christian nationalist" viewpoints. Are they a faction there, too? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 03:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For discussion purposes, here are some citations over the past few years that received coverage in regard to the Republican party's associations, and for the most part, it begins with the Christian right then evolves around Trump's rise in the GOP (also see Oxford Academic).
 * 1. Politico 2022 "Christian nationalism, a belief that the United States was founded as a white, Christian nation and that there is no separation between church and state, is gaining steam on the right. Prominent Republican politicians have made the themes critical to their message to voters in the run up to the 2022 midterm elections."
 * 2. LA Times 2023 "The strength of Christian nationalist sentiment can be clearly seen in a wide range of issues that Republican elected officials have stressed, including efforts to curtail the rights and visibility of transgender people, but also some less obvious topics, such as immigration."
 * 3. PRRI 2023 Partisanship is closely linked to Christian nationalist views. Most Republicans qualify as either Christian nationalism sympathizers (33%) or adherents (21%), while at least three-quarters of both independents (46% skeptics and 29% rejecters) and Democrats (36% skeptics and 47% rejecters) lean toward rejecting Christian nationalism. Republicans (21%) are about four times as likely as Democrats (5%) or independents (6%) to be adherents of Christian nationalism."
 * 4. WaPo 2022 "According to political scientists Stella Rouse and Shibley Telhami, most Republicans support declaring the United States a Christian nation. And Christian nationalists are running for office at all levels of government, from local school boards to presumptive presidential candidates. Though the numbers of those who claim Christian nationalist beliefs may decline, Christian nationalism’s influence in public life only continues to grow."
 * 5. fivethirtyeight 2022 "In the 1980s and 1990s, as white Christian conservatives forged an alliance with the Republican Party, Christianity itself started to become a partisan symbol. Identifying as a Christian was no longer just about theology, community or family history — to many Americans, the label became uncomfortably tangled with the Christian Right’s political agenda, which was itself becoming increasingly hard to separate from the GOP’s political agenda."
 * 6. The conversation 2021 "As scholars of religion Andrew Whitehead and Samuel L. Perry argue in their book “Taking Back America for God,” Christian nationalism is predominant in Trump support."
 * 7. Yale News 2022 "Even if Donald Trump is not the GOP candidate in 2024, and I think he’s still the odds-on favorite to be the nominee, it’s very likely that whoever the Republicans nominate will espouse a platform that aligns with white Christian nationalism because it’s popular with the Republican base and those are the folks who vote in Republican presidential primaries." - Philip Gorski
 * Cheers. DN (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In regards to right-libertarianism, we could also link it to Libertarian Republican instead of Libertarianism in the United States. I personally believe the latter is too broad as it also mentions left-libertarianism. I would also link centrism to Center-right politics as well. Generally, I prefer to be as specific as possible, but I don't want to confuse readers either. BootsED (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think linking it to libertarian republican is fine! I also dont like right-libertarian for the reasons Toa stated. Carlp941 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to link centrism to center-right, personally. As for Christian right - look at the dates on the sources. They are either old, or refer to old events. I think we need actual current ones that distinguish them from social conservatives, broadly - major social conservative groups now don't tend to segregate by religion (ie. the Alliance Defending Freedom is more than happy to represent conservative Jews or Muslims, for example). Are they actually separate movements or factions? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 05:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I think the current centrism link works well. I also added in some additional sources that are more recent about the Christian right in the Republican Party. I also removed one source that was too specific and focused on the role of religion in the election of 1896. BootsED (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Moving discussion and list of modern factions to the separate factions page
I have noticed that the majority of discussion on this page revolves around the ideology in the infobox and what is/is not a "faction" of the modern Republican Party. By my count, 16 of the 24 discussions on this talk page relate in some way to disagreements about the political positions in the infobox and what constitutes a faction (Ironically, this makes sense, as the page specifically states that the modern GOP suffers from intense factionalism).

However, the talk page for the relevant page Factions in the Republican Party (United States) has next to no discussion on what the current factions are. I believe that this discussion should move over to the appropriate page to avoid overwhelming this high-level page about the Republican Party with minutiae about a specific section of it.

I would also propose removing the list of current, 21st century factions from the page and simply keeping the existing "Civil War and Reconstruction era", "20th century" and "21st century" sections. These provide a good high-level overview of the factions within the party. The specific list of 21st century factions should be removed and linked to the separate page. Most of the text on this page is simply copied over from the other page in the first place. BootsED (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This might not be a bad approach. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support removing in-depth content and talk page discussions of the factions in this article, and instead just having them in the Factions in the Republican Party (United States) article. We should just include information on the historical factions--before say 2016--which are subject to much fewer editing disputes and have the benefit of hindsight.
 * This talk page can't agree on how to define the factions except for the centrist, conservative, and Trumpist factions. We've had disputes over whether to call a faction the "Christian right" or "social conservatives," how big of factions libertarians and neoconservatives are, and what position(s) the Republican Party is on the ideological left-right spectrum.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Political positions being reinstated once again
. 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 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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, . . 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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,, 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? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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)
 * , 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 <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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)
 * , 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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:


 * 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. 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
 * to right-wing
 * to right-wing
 * to right-wing
 * to right-wing

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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2024
There is an extra " " in the education section. It should be removed.

Education
The Republican Party has steadily increased the percentage of votes it receives from white voters without college degrees since the 1970s, even as the educational attainment of the United States has steadily increased.   134.215.117.33 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks soibangla (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

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, , , , , . 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,.
 * 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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)

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.

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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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)

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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 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)

Please change to "centre-right to far-right". Here are the sources.
Sources for far-right:

Adolph, R. B. (2021). American Extremism: The far right of the US Republican Party. Atlantisch Perspectief, 45(3), 25–29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48638241

Far right kills republican support. (2023/11/14/, 2023 Nov 14). University Wire Gill, K., & editor, a. (2023/09/17/). Texas GOP acquits AG paxton after threats from far-right republicans. San Diego: Newstex. Keilar, B., Berman, J., Sciutto, J., Nick Paton Walsh, J. M., & Phillip, A. (2022/04/27/). Gale In Context: Biography, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A501957309/BIC?u=vuw&sid=summon&xid=02ead6c4. Accessed 6 July 2024.

Battlefield expands as blasts heard inside russia near ukraine; russia shuts off gas supplies to poland, bulgaria in escalation; tapes say, rep. kevin McCarthy (R-CA) feared far-right republicans would incite violence. aired 7-7:30a ET. New York: CQ Roll Call.

"Charlottesville Violence Highlights Republican Party's History Of Far-Right Factions." All Things Considered, 14 Aug. 2017. Dhantegge (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I do agree its important to add the far-right factions. I do think its debatable if its even a center-right party anymore due to how big the far-right factions have become. They have a lot of similiaritys to hard right parties like BJP in India, Liberal Party in Brazil, Fidez in Hungary etc. The only thing is the GOP still contains a lot of moderates so I would say it should be Right-Wing to Far-Right with center-right factions. I think it saying it has the same position as the conservative party of UK or conservative party of Canada is silly. I honestly kind of think the article implying the Democratic Party is center-left while the Liberal Party of Canada is center to center-left to be silly. This implys the Democratic Party has the same position as the Labour Party of UK which is a social democratic party with socialist factions. The Democratic Party should be center to center-left with center-right to Left-Wing factions. TYMR (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The sources do not say that the party is far left merely that it has a far right, but that seems to be relative to the party. That is, they are the far right of the Repubican Party, not necessarily far right in an absolute sense.
 * The reason for different descriptions for Canada and the U.S. is that Canada has a muliple party system with Liberals in the center, while the U.S. has a two party system with Democrats on the left. TFD (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * As explained in multiple other discussions above, reliable academic sources do not agree with your claims. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Update the lead on the party's positions once the 2024 RNC Platform comes out.
See 2024_Republican_National_Convention, note that the platform was written by Trump's campaign. The platform has been described as "more nationalistic, more protectionist, and less socially conservative" by The New York Times.

Remarks on the first draft: The platform calls for tariffs on imports--I will update the trade section (I wrote it); it calls for deporting millions of illegal immigrants--update the immigration section; it drops opposition to same-sex marriage--update the LGBT issues section; it calls for states to enact abortion policy--update the abortion section; it calls for ending support for electric vehicles--environmentalism section; it calls for protecting Social Security and Medicare; etc. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It’s practically a far right party. Although center right factions exist. Although I would edit the Democratic Party to include factions that are center right Zman19964 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Putting aside the unsourced above - I oppose major changes to anything based on party platforms. Unlike in Europe, American platforms are practically useless, non-binding, and generally not worth the paper they are written on. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 04:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating for major changes, but the platform provides updates and more information, particularly for the right-wing populism and Trumpist factions. I'm not changing the lead without consensus, but I do want to change the sections on political positions. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "more nationalistic" Big surpise there. Trumpism is long thought to have incorporated the ideology of neo-nationalism, and its typical political positions (right-wing populism,anti-globalization, nativism, protectionism, opposition to immigration, Islamophobia and Euroscepticism). Dimadick (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In the article, it says this on the platform: "The Party's 2024 platform was opposed to immigration, calling for mass deportation of all illegal immigrants in the United States." Isn't immigration & illegal immigration two different things? That statement does not differentiate between the two.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

We should not be making any updates based on the platform until it is adopted by delegates at the RNC. It is not adopted until that moment. Before then it is simply a draft and could (though unlikely) be amended at the convention by the delegates. LoneOmega (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Where’s the mention of the GOP vs. Woodrow Wilson
This arrival mentions the 1912 split between Ted Roosevelt and Taft, but not that it resulted in the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson, or about how the GOP gave Wilson a run for his money in 1916, making WW the most narrowly re-elected incumbent in modern times until Bush #2 in 2004! 24.154.117.91 (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I personally think that, given the context you said in the topic, that sounds like it’s good to add. Oliverryannn (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

*IMPORTANT* Presidential/Vice Presidential Nominees
I think we need to note how Donald Trump of Florida and J. D. Vance of Ohio are the presidential/vice presidential nominees of the Republican Party in the info box. It was just revealed on July 15 at the Republican National Convention the presidential and vice presidential nominees (Donald Trump and J.D. Vance). I think it is important to show that because if you look at a lot of American parties that are in the elections’ (e.g. Democratic Party, Libertarian Party) infoboxes, you will see their nominees. Oliverryannn (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

"Center-right", Center-right to right-wing", or "center-right to far-right"
We're unfortunately back into this discussion.

Recently, several editors have made changes right-leaning countries in the Anglosphere as "center-right to right-wing" based off of them having right-wing/far-right factions. This seems a bit ridiculous.

Because of the two party system: it's common for political parties to dramatically their ideology over time. And we have traditionally not scratched their political position over it.


 * The British Labour Party was far more left-wing (some went so far as to argue that it was a "left-wing" rather than "center-left" party at the time) under Jeremy Corbyn v. Keir Starmer.
 * Even under the peak influence of the Backbone club, and the introduction of Rogernomics, most sources continued to refer to the New Zealand Labour Party as "center-left".

I removed it here due to the relatively poor sourcing + change of WP: PRECEDENT. What do editors think?

As two-party systems force all "left-wing" and "right-wing" forces, by definition, into two main policies, it's not surprising that as organizations they have periods of "right-wing/hard right" politics and "centrist" ones.

I'd go far as to state that even if there was a President Jeremy Corbyn (thought experiment), or Bernie Sanders, that it wouldn't make the Democrats no longer a "center-left" party.KlayCax (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * , the RFC in question seems to be just for some description of the party being right of center, rather than the given wording that was added in.I wouldn't say that there's a consensus here.
 * and other editors have favored "center-right" rather than "right-wing" or "far-right". That's what I also think.
 * It's typical for center-left and center-right parties to have periods of time where they could be easily described as being de facto right-wing or left-wing parties. Yet that doesn't change the above facts. KlayCax (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * From the closer's comment: . We can restart the discussion, of course, but you shouldn't just ping one participant. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you interpret it that way,, then it shouldn't include "center-right to right-wing" at all, but rather a description of it as "right-wing". (Meaning that "center-right" to "right-wing" also violates it.)
 * The sources in question for "right-wing" are extraordinarily poor. A passing mention to "the right-wing Republican Party" doesn't mean that it isn't a center-right party. Nor does passing mentions to the "left-wing Democratic Party" mean that it isn't a center-left party. Do sources deny that either party is? Because it seems to me that passing mentions and a single, opinion-editorial from Politico do not override what a large majority of academic sources state.
 * A bit off topic, but this gets into a deep problem raised by other editors: people started deciding where the parties fit in their opinion rather than what sources state. That's the complete opposite of policy. It's typical for center-left and center-right parties - by their nature - to have hardcore or even radical factions. But that doesn't mean that the party of the whole isn't a coalition of right-leaning centrists to hardcore conservatives, libertarians, and populists. KlayCax (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally: none of the sources state that it is a "center-right to right-wing" party. They describe it as either "center-right" or "right-wing". Making it a violation of WP: SYNTH.
 * Of the two, the highest-quality sources seem unanimous in their conclusion. Unfortunately it's common for people on here to look at people like Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump, and many others as "far-left/left-wing" and "right-wing/far-right" and then are attempting to change the positions of center-left and center-right parties because of that. KlayCax (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And all of these problems are not just limited to this article. But other political party articles as well, . KlayCax (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on "center-right", except that I was happy that its inclusion seemed to end the last major edit war. The last discussion (I think) was at . If you oppose "center-right" and think it doesn't have consensus, you won't see me reverting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I am generally satisfied with current consensus, but there absolutely is something to be said about sources that inconsistently describe the party as any degree of right, and factions ranging from the center to the far right. The reality is, both parties are big tent manifestations of their entire ideological side. I don't know the best way to explain this in article other than to say as much in the lead. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)