Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 14

RfC on section of text
Originally placed under the "democracy" subheading of "policies", I later moved it to "composition" as per reasons discussed elsewhere on this talk page. Should the following text, in its current form, remain in the article? Towards the end of the 1990s and in the early 21st century, the Republican Party increasingly resorted to "constitutional hardball" practices.

A number of scholars have asserted that the House speakership of Republican Newt Gingrich played a key role in undermining democratic norms in the United States, hastening political polarization, and increasing partisan prejudice. According to Harvard University political scientists Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky, Gingrich's speakership had a profound and lasting impact on American politics and the health of American democracy. They argue that Gingrich instilled a "combative" approach in the Republican Party, where hateful language and hyper-partisanship became commonplace, and where democratic norms were abandoned. Gingrich frequently questioned the patriotism of Democrats, called them corrupt, compared them to fascists, and accused them of wanting to destroy the United States. Gingrich was also involved in several major government shutdowns.

Scholars have also characterized Mitch McConnell's tenure as Senate Minority Leader and Senate Majority Leader during the Obama presidency as one where obstructionism reached all-time highs. Political scientists have referred to McConnell's use of the filibuster as "constitutional hardball", referring to the misuse of procedural tools in a way that undermines democracy. McConnell delayed and obstructed health care reform and banking reform, which were two landmark pieces of legislation that Democrats sought to pass (and in fact did pass) early in Obama's tenure. By delaying Democratic priority legislation, McConnell stymied the output of Congress. Political scientists Eric Schickler and Gregory J. Wawro write, "by slowing action even on measures supported by many Republicans, McConnell capitalized on the scarcity of floor time, forcing Democratic leaders into difficult trade-offs concerning which measures were worth pursuing. That is, given that Democrats had just two years with sizeable majorities to enact as much of their agenda as possible, slowing the Senate's ability to process even routine measures limited the sheer volume of liberal bills that could be adopted."

McConnell's refusal to hold hearings on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland during the final year of Obama's presidency was described by political scientists and legal scholars as "unprecedented", a "culmination of this confrontational style", a "blatant abuse of constitutional norms", and a "classic example of constitutional hardball."

After the 2020 United States presidential election was declared for Biden, President Donald Trump's refusal to concede and demands of Republican state legislatures and officials to ignore the popular vote of the states was described as "unparalleled" in American history and "profoundly antidemocratic". Some journalists and foreign officials have also referred to Trump as a fascist in the aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol.

Following the storming of the Capitol, a survey conducted by the American Enterprise Institute found that 56% of Republicans agreed with the statement, "The traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it," compared to 36% of respondents overall. Sixty percent of white evangelical Republicans agreed with the statement. Kind regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that it has some POV issues. A lot of the sources cited are opinion pieces, which would be fine if there were opinion pieces from both sides cited, but there really aren't, so that's an issue, imho. Also, while it is sourced, it kind of reads like a piece of anti-GOP political activism rather than an encyclopedia article. I am not saying that we shouldn't include information that could be seen as negative to a political party, but we should be careful to make sure that it is written like an encyclopedia article. For example, phrases like "misuse of procedural tools" implies a value judgement on political tactics that I don't think is appropriate in Wikipedia's voice. Similarly, phrases like "undermines democracy" is really vague (what democracy should look like can differ greatly between opinions) and may also imply a value judgement. I think that Wikipedia should be very hesitant to make value judgements on contemporary political issues. JMM12345 (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Yes, it should remain in the article, and frankly, I think the article needs to go even further than that. For two months after Joe Biden won the election, the Republican Party staged a coup to try and overturn the results. It wasn’t just Donald Trump, it was the entire Republican Party, more or less. The infrastructure of the Republican Party—i.e., the RNC—was 100% in support of Trump’s attempted coup. In the end, the majority of congressional Republicans voted to overturn the election, even after the storming of the Capitol. The only reason why democracy prevailed this time is because of the actions of brave state and local Republican officials who withstood the fascistic currents of their party and did their duty to certify the election. But those people are now being punished by their local Republican Parties — for example, in Georgia, as part of their new voter suppression bill, legislative Republicans included a provision stripping the Secretary of State of his ability to certify elections in the future, and instead giving that power to the state legislature. This is punishment for Raffensperger refusing Trump’s demand to overturn his state’s election. The Republican Party is an anti-democratic, fascistic movement, and I think that needs to be included, or at least touched upon, in the article. Mcleanm302 (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"Big Lie" 10 May addition
, this edit[] violates WP:EGG. Your first reference is an AP News article []. In that article Trump calls what he says was a stolen election "the Big Lie". However, you embedded a link to a wiki article about a rhetorical technique used by the Nazis. Since Trump is the one calling this a big lie it is very unlikely that Trump is going to use the term as your hyperlinked article suggests. While the misinformation related to the 2020 election is clearly DUE, it's not clear that the misinformation is so widely called "the Big Lie" (upper case) vs often referred to as a "big lie" (lower case). Net result, this may not be DUE content and the hyperlink is not acceptable. Springee (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a large section at the page about Trump's stolen election claim; linking to Big lie rather than just to big lie would resolve the MOS:EGG issue. The actual problem with the edit is that there are WP:DUE concerns, particularly regarding WP:Recentism, with talking so much about the 2020 election in the lead. I'd encourage moving the material to somewhere in the body and refining the wording. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with RECENT. Since this is in the Trump era section I'm less concerned about DUE.  The link to the big lie article is not acceptable since it would imply that Trump has talked about this as a strategy and that when Trump says "big lie" he actually means this rhetorical method.  I don't think any sources make that claim so EGG applies. Springee (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

, there is not consensus for the link you restored here[]. It violates EGG. Since it is new to the article per NOCON you need to show consensus for inclusion. Suggesting that Trump is using a Nazi propaganda strategy without a clear RS tie in between the two subjects is not acceptable. It is also worth noting that the trump section of big lie is largely added by you and disputed by others. Springee (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021
99.23.34.133 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong ideology for GOP. Prevalent ideology is now Trumpism


 * I partly agree with the IP. The ideology in the infobox is severely outdated. See discussion above. Jeppiz (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 Republican officials threatening to form new party 2021 after Liz Cheney was ousted
I think we should add a part about threats from Former Republican officials to Start a new 3rd party because of what they described as "the takeover of the Republican Party by Donald Trump into the party of Trump". I do think we should add Republican Split section for the page about these threats to split. --Senator John Sidney McCain The Third (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * there is a great deal of speculation about that right now--but "third party" is a very strong move that no leading republican has actually proposed so far, Rjensen (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2021
Infobox needs to be updated, Steve Stivers resigned on May 16, 2021, they are now 2011 Republican members of the House 172.58.108.2 (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  TG HL ↗  01:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, that was a typo, I meant they're are now 211 members with Stivers's resignation. 172.58.108.2 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2021 (2)
Infobox needs to be updated. Steve Stivers resigned on May 16, 2021 to become CEO of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce. They're are now 211 Republican members of the House. 172.58.107.150 (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"pro-business"
Earlier, I placed a neutrality is disputed template after the opening sentence of the "Business community" subsection, The Republican Party has traditionally been a pro-business party, but immediately reverted the change so I wanted to bring it up for discussion.

While it's undoubtedly true that the Republican Party has been seen as the pro-business party, but reasonable people can argue whether its policies have actually been pro-business, or whether "pro-business" might be too broad considering the impact of Republican-supported policies on different types of businesses, and I wonder if the term "pro-business" (also used in the "20th Century" section) might be too promotional to use without qualification. I definitely don't think it's "uncontroversial" as Toa Nidhiki describes in the edit summary.

Here's how I think the sentence could be rewritten:
 * ''The Republican Party has traditionally claimed itself to be a pro-business party.
 * ''The Republican Party has traditionally been seen by voters as a pro-business party.
 * ''The Republican Party's traditional support of lower taxes and reduced regulations have been popular with business owners.

In addition, I'd rewrite the sentence, "The pro-business policies of the decade seemed to produce an unprecedented prosperity" (which has an additional issue with the unverifiable "seemed to" statement) with: We can avoid using promotional/possibly POV language and be more specific about what we're talking about here. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ''The laissez-faire policies of the decade coincided with unprecedented prosperity
 * ''The free market-driven policies of the decade coincided with unprecedented prosperity
 * It's pretty much uncontested (and I can come up with the sources if necessary) that the GOP has been a big supporter of big business/business over the years. (Whether we are talking the Rockefeller Republicans or what came after.) Ergo I see no issue with the current statement The Republican Party has traditionally been a pro-business party. To what degree that has been bought by the business community....I cannot say and have no opinion/source there.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm under the impression that it's pretty much uncontested in the academic literature that in terms of its economic agenda, the Republican Party is geared towards business and the wealthy. That assessment may change over time. If it does, we can revisit the issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But it seems like "pro-business" implies that its policies are (or at least intended to be) beneficial to all businesses, not just corporations, since we can make reasonable arguments about their impact on small businesses. "Pro-business" feels vague in terms of both what it actually entails and what types of businesses actually benefit. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the easiest way to resolve this is to delve into high-quality sources (such as academic publications) and use the language that they use. I think that that could help clarify the nuances and convince editors on a better wording. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * What about, "Like the Democratic Party, the Republican Party is a party of big business? Historically, they have both received strong financial support from big business and enacted legislation and policies favorable to them." This incidentally makes the U.S. different from most other countries where there is normally only one party of big business, one party of labor and various other parties. TFD (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And the above comment brings up another point: if Republicans are pro-business, then it stands to reason that its opposition party is anti-business. That's a pretty serious claim and requires substantiation. On the other hand, the Democrats aren't anti-business, then being pro-business isn't particularly interesting and not worth mentioning. Either way, the claim needs some qualification. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As well as explaining the differences in the two parties, we should explain the similarities. The closeness in the two parties in ideology may be more significant than their differences, especially considering that it is unique outside one party states. The main difference in the two parties is that the Republicans have appealed to old stock and wealthier voters, while the Dems have appealed to minorities and less wealthy voters. But that's had more influence on wedge issues rather than the cleavages seen between European parties. TFD (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go as far as to say the Democratic party is "anti-business". It's probably a bit more accurate to say the GOP tends to favor less regulation and less taxes on business than it's rival. Since the advent of the DLC takeover of the Democratic party, you could call them very pro-business. There are probably a million different ways to word this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also ambiguity as to whether it refers to big business or small business or both. TFD (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Paleoconservative in factions?
Although it seems to be smaller than the others it seems relevant enough to include imo as famous figures like Pat Buchanan are members of the Republican Party. Also see this page which includes it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Republican_Party_(United_States)#Paleoconservatives 69.120.198.52 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Paleocons don't make up a large faction of voters or representatives. Toa Nidhiki05 17:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Says...who? "Paleoconservatism is a political philosophy and variety of conservatism in the United States stressing American nationalism, Christian ethics, regionalism, and traditionalist conservatism." soibangla (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Says pretty much everything. I'd argue neoconservatism as a force is on the way out too. The major paleocon institutions (like The American Conservative) have pretty much always existed well outside the normal conservative sphere. Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh I know it's a minority and probably slowly declining but it is still there and even this article implies it. Hence why my suggestion was for "faction", not the majority. Also, the Democratic Party article includes conservatives as a faction, even though there aren't as many conservative Democrats as there used to be, so my idea isn't without precedent.69.120.198.52 (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021
"Former Illinois Representative Abraham Lincoln spent several years building support within the party, campaigning heavily for Frémont in 1856 and making a bid for the Senate in 1958" Change 1958 to 1858. (year correction) Jasonkioke (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ soibangla (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

8 June edits related to immigration, same sex marriage and text order
, would you explain your positions with regards to this edit []. Snoogan, I don't see where this edit violates the RfC you reference. I also think the order shift makes more sense. Could you provide a better summary of your concerns? Springee (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the RfC closer then. You're in tendentious WP:IDHT territory if you're trying to argue that this RfC did not conclude with a consensus that the lead should say the Republican Party supports "restrictions on immigration". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First, AGF. Based on your answer here you didn't communicate your immigration concern in your edit summary.  Reading over the edit change it's not clear this took immigration out of the lead entirely which doesn't even appear to be the primary topic of the RfC.  I wouldn't presume from the RfC that it meant immigration must be in the lead, only that if it's in the lead it should cover all types vs just illegal.  Perhaps if you had made it clear that you objected to the removal of immigration as a topic from the lead that would have made your objections more clear the first time.  Beyond that you reverted a lot of changes not just the placement of the immigration topic.  Would you object to a compromise edit that keeps immigration in the lead but keeps many of the order shifts that look reasonable to me?  Springee (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I have already explained why I disagree with the other editor's changes on the GOP's position on LGBT rights issues. It is false to portray the GOP as only having "historically opposed same-sex marriage", and misleading to order the content so that it starts with one 2021 poll that gives readers the impression that the Republican Party is pro-same sex marriage when the lawmakers in the party are not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't explain the full range of changes you reverted. I think the contemporary first, followed by the historic makes sense.  Also, you shouldn't conflate some law makers with the party as a whole.  Springee (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The 2020 party platform opposes same-sex marriage. That's not "some law makers". There's a consistent theme on this page where editors try to claim that the Republican Party does not actually hold views that are in the party's platform and which majorities in the party consistently vote on. A couple of months ago, editors here tried to claim that the GOP was some kind of pro marijuana legalization party (at the same time that nearly every GOP House member voted against a marijuana decriminalization proposal), now they're purportedly a pro same-sex marriage party (while the party platform calls for a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage). It's tiring. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think changing the order of content is the issue you are trying to make of it. Certainly you should approach the concerns of other editors with an assumption of good faith which seems to have failed here.  Springee (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Republican party doesn't have a 2020 platform. They just copied 2016. Toa Nidhiki05 00:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Fails NPOV
I'm afraid this article fails WP:NPOV by continuing to pretend the "majority" ideology of GOP is conservatism. Conservative parties include the Conservative Party in the UK, the Conservative Party in Canada, the Christian Democrats in Germany, the Republican Party in France etc. Previously it included the GOP. These days, it would seem a perfectly neutral fact that right-wing populism and adherence to conspiracy theories make up the majority of the party; this was confirmed again today when the Party voted to remove Cheney simply for refusing to condone conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. As I've followed the discussion here, I'm well familiar with the argument that we should use scholarly sources for ideology. That's perfectly fine - if they are from 2020 or 2021. What we cannot do, however, is to use sources from before the Trump area and pretend the ideology hasn't shifted substantially. Few parties have seen such a rapid shift in ideology (as numerous reliable sources state) and using older sources to whitewash the party and pretend its ideology is "conservatism" fails NPOV. Jeppiz (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I feel this discussion happens every week here. Toa Nidhiki05 00:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not an argument. All you do is keep reverting based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and refuse to even discuss. Jeppiz (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless/until you provide sources that state what you're stating, and not just say 'numerous reliable sources', this is WP:NOTFORUM. Provide sources that directly say that the Republican Party is not conservative anymore. Otherwise, I suggest you stop your very blatantly WP:RGW violating edits here. Stating that other editors are trying to "whitewash" is also a potential WP:NPA violation, and I'd encourage you to continue discussion more civilly if you wish to continue discussing this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, you seriously came on here and suggested to put the party ideology as "adherence to conspiracy theories"??? Lmaoooooooooooooooooooooooo not to mention the sheer front to sell it as "perfectly neutral"? I don't understand how you're expecting a dignified response here. Davefelmer (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Trying to ignore that more heated aspects of this conversation while trying to contribute, I think there arguably is some validity to the concern that the GOP's current ideology seems difficult to classify in line with the way prominent Republicans in the past have presented it. I am not sure if my suggestion would be within the style guidelines per-se (it's been a while since I have been particularly active on here), but I am not sure it makes sense to imply that Donald Trump and Angela Merkel are adherents to the same ideological perspective, so I would suggest a subtle compromise until we can reach a consensus, if ever. Specifically, I notice that the link in the template is to the page specifically about the conservative movement as it exists in the US, and in the text it specifically says "[the party's] 21st century ideology is American conservatism...", again linking to the extensive article, with the term being a redirect. I think it might make sense to change the term in the majority ideology slot from "Conservatism" directly to "American Conservatism", in order to emphasize its distinctiveness in the absence of a consensus on what the actual right characterization would be. anamedperson (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: wikilink to big lie
I contend that Does wikilinking to the big lie does not constitute an WP:EGG as asserted here ? As that article contains a lead reference and a significant section about Trump's use of the technique, regardless of who used the term decades ago, and I propose the wikilink be restored. soibangla (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Support: as proposer. soibangla (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The Trump content of the "Big Lie" article is a mess. The problem seems to be conflating using a rather common term "big lie" as a name for something vs the rhetorical "big lie" technique. When one looks at the big lie article it talks about the origin of the method etc. Most of the Trump related content there is just people saying the election results denials are being called a "big lie" or even the "Big Lie". If this were linking to an article on the 2020 election Trumps post election information/misinformation that would be fine. To link to an article about Nazi propaganda is a clear EGG problem. Linking directly to the Trump subsection was suggested but that article is a mess and seems to have two factions fighting over it. It adds nothing to this article to include this questionable link. Here is an article from spring 2019 where a Republican is accusing the Democrats of running a big lie against Trump. [] Here is a 2011 article about the Big Lie associated with the fiscal crisis []. It really seems like the "big lie" term has been used a lot and in many contexts. This might be an example of the method but it seems questionable to link "people call this a "big lie"" with the mess that is the big lie article. Springee (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This RfC is malformed per WP:RFCNEUTRAL. It needs to lay out the issue concisely and fully without assuming prior knowledge of the discussion above. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am confident the edit explains the issue concisely and fully without requiring knowledge of prior discussions, specifically that the stated rationale for exclusion due to EGG is specious. soibangla (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I contend that wikilinking to the big lie does not constitute an WP:EGG... is an argument, not a neutral question. You are experienced enough to know what a proper RfC should look like—you need to refactor to make it that, or any editor here is free to remove the RfC tag. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That article is not appropriate to link to for "big lie" here. It may be appropriate to link to the section about the US application, but it's not appropriate to insinuate by association that people saying it are Nazis or participated in Nazi Germany's "big lie", which is what the entire first part of the article is about - including the lead. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * From big lie lead:
 * soibangla (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You ignore the 10+ other paragraphs that appear before any other mention, as well as the first three paragraphs of the lead which are about Nazi Germany. A link to the section would be appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But wikilinking to the Trump section would bypass the vital context from the first sentence of the lead that readers need to know:
 * soibangla (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Include - There is no false conflation here: the citations for this term aren't just talking about Trump repeatedly lying in the general sense, they're describing the Republican Party's repeated and obviously false statements about electoral fraud being a modern example of the big lie propaganda technique. NPR, CNN, and the New York Times all explicitly link Trump's "stolen election" propaganda to the technique used by Nazi Germany. WP:EASTEREGG doesn't apply here at all: that is a guideline concerning disguising "hidden meaning" wikilinks behind a pipe that doesn't match the target. This one is exactly what the link suggests it is. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Include – it's not an easter egg, the phrase is being used in reference to its historical connotations and meaning. The article on the big lie doesn't describe them as being two separate and distinct things that happen to share the same name or something, the wikilink makes perfect sense. I do note, however, this RfC fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL and should probably be reformed. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose General points on linking style says, "Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author." The linked article is not about Trump's claim that the election was stolen but about the use of the term big lie in general. If we had written that Trump's critics called his claim a big lie, then we could remove the quotes and provide a direct link. Or we could follow the rest of the advice, "Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead – either before it or soon after." In that case you could write, "Trump'[s false assertions came to be known as "the big lie." Big lie is a reference to propaganda techniques used by leading Nazis Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler." TFD (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , this is a good solution - the problem is linking big lie without explaining in this article that it is a reference to. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Include the arguments to not link this seem to be suggesting that Big lie be split into two separate articles. Regardless of whether that split should happen, a link is called for.  The quotes here aren't a long direct quote, it is simply showing that the phrase "big lie" is not in Wikipedia's voice. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 03:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Include. Berchanhimez raises a good point. The article for now has the term "the big lie", whose meaning is clearly about the propaganda technique and a reference to something patently false (that's what a majority of news outlets critical of Trump said), not just "a big falsehood". The term "big lie" is different in its meaning than "big" and "lie" separated, so we have to make it clear for all readers we intend "big lie" not to be semantically separate, and that is exactly what MOS:LINKSTYLE is about. Let's not forget that the readers of English Wikipedia are not necessarily proficient in English (they may use English Wikipedia as more reliable/extensive, which is the case with Ukrainians or Poles, for instance), so they might also learn the term they already know in another language, even if it's translated the same way as if there were two separate words glued together. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Exclude This violates both WP:RECENT and is a clear attempt to tie Republicans with Nazis, which is an inflammatory and highly controversial claim. Toa Nidhiki05 21:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Exclude Highly inflammatory per WP:EGG. In fact, the idea that "Republicans are like Nazis" is itself a Big Lie. The fact that the RfC question even debatable here is a perfect illustration of why many people think WP:NPOV is hogwash. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Republicans are like Nazis" is not being asserted. There is only an association with an expression. soibangla (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The reader could easily interpret it either way. That's the problem. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - WP:EASTEREGG is being misquoted here. An Easter egg link is one which hides an article link behind a generic or loosely-related pipe. This is an Easter egg: the lieutenant governor of British Columbia declined a request by the premier ("premier" is a pipe to a specific individual). The fix is not to remove the link but to clarify in prose: the lieutenant governor of British Columbia declined a request by Premier Christy Clark. First of all the link in this case isn't piped so opposing based on a subsection of the Piped link guide is invalid on its face. But, if the issue is that the prose doesn't adequately reflect that "the big lie" in this case is a reference to a Nazi propaganda technique, the fix would be to write it out, like "came to be known as "the big lie,"". And yes, the sourcing supports that explicitly:
 * Lastly, "Republicans under Trump used a propaganda technique also used by the Nazis" does not imply "Republicans are Nazis". That is a faulty generalization, and it's a very poor reason to hide relevant information from readers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lastly, "Republicans under Trump used a propaganda technique also used by the Nazis" does not imply "Republicans are Nazis". That is a faulty generalization, and it's a very poor reason to hide relevant information from readers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lastly, "Republicans under Trump used a propaganda technique also used by the Nazis" does not imply "Republicans are Nazis". That is a faulty generalization, and it's a very poor reason to hide relevant information from readers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lastly, "Republicans under Trump used a propaganda technique also used by the Nazis" does not imply "Republicans are Nazis". That is a faulty generalization, and it's a very poor reason to hide relevant information from readers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lastly, "Republicans under Trump used a propaganda technique also used by the Nazis" does not imply "Republicans are Nazis". That is a faulty generalization, and it's a very poor reason to hide relevant information from readers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose, not per WP:EGG but per MOS:LINKQUOTE. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:LINKQUOTE and WP:RECENT. Linking it in this manner would be a textbook violation in my opinion. I also doubt this will be important 2 years from now to even be that important. If it has to be included, I would prefer TFD's solution. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, although this probably should be framed wider. In one of recent publications author argues that the Republican Party now works as the Ministry of Truth to whitewash their Big Brother. This party has changed dramatically during last years and that should be reflected on the page. In fact, it works hard to undermine the US democracy by restricting voting and by other means . There are historical examples of similar Parties in other countries...My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit request - correct date
In the lead, it says slavery was banned in the US 1865. It was actually banned January 1, 1863 with the Emancipation Proclamation.
 * The date is for the constitutional amendment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The constitutional amendment was not when it was banned. It was banned with the Emancipation Proclamation whence the significance of it.
 * "Even though it excluded areas not in rebellion, it still applied to more than 3.5 million of the 4 million enslaved people in the country" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2021
Delete "The GOP also cheats and are considered assholes." from the introduction (last line). Really? How did that make it through? 173.73.116.28 (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Party color?
On their respective article pages, it says that red is the color of the Republican party and blue of the Democratic party. Is this de facto or de jure?

I remember reading, years ago, that the official colors of both of those parties were red, white, and blue. And that before the 2000 presidential election (and the brouhaha that followed), the media alternated between red and blue for each party.

Have the party platforms now officially adopted only one official color? Or is this simply convention? Pine (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It's explained in Republican Party. News media alternated colors for the two parties until 2000, after which the current colors became used consistently, although they have not been officially adopted. TFD (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Political position: Centre-left and/or left-wing
The Republican Party is a leftist party. Right and left as political descriptions began during the French Revolution. In the Estates General, the republicans sat on the left and the monarchists on the right. The Republican Party continues to affirm the American Revolution, which was supported by radical Whigs, liberals, and Unitarians, some of whom also favored the French Republicans.

During the Republican phase of the French Revolution, the National Convention limited the electorate to all Frenchmen twenty-five years old or more, domiciled for a year and living by the product of their labor. The Republican Party (United States) is even more radical when it comes to suffrage, because it supported both Amendments XXIV and XXVI.

In nations as diverse as Spain, Ireland, Australia, and Japan, republicans sit on the left, and America is no exception.

If that wasn't enough, the Republican Party is against racism. Therefore, they support equality, which is the primary aspect of leftism. 76.20.22.126 (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Etymological fallacy / . This is ridiculous; simply read the article. TucanHolmes  (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Racial identity politics is no longer the driving force of the Republican Party. For example, only 17% of white Republicans would oppose the interracial marriage of a relative. 71.41.136.212 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * See the article Sinistrisme. Following the French revolution, new parties emerged that filled the seats on the left, pushing the previous occupants to the right. Meanwhile the original right-wingers, who supported absolute monarchy, disappeared. So today the French Republicans are part of the Right, while the Socialists dominate the Left. TFD (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The GOP of 2021 is "republican" in the sense that it opposes monarchy and aristocracy as did the Republicans of the 1790s. If and only if the USA has a powerful king and a lot of dukes and counts then the GOP would still be on the left. Rjensen (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Are the politics of our ancient ancestors beyond consideration because they are (figuratively) held by ghosts? If so, is that not recency bias? The set of all ideologies cannot be contained in a physical legislative chamber—just use your imagination! 71.41.136.212 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sinistrisme was set in motion before the Revolution was over—when the moderate constitutional monarchist Feuillants were forced out, the liberal republican Girondins who began on the left were moved to the "right", only due to the physical constraints of seating several hundred Frenchmen in the same room. By accepting the new definitions, are you not giving assent to the Reign of Terror, the infernal columns, and the republican marriages? "Disappeared" is a polite way of putting it. 71.41.136.212 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know what point you are making. Republicanism is radical when the government is a monarchy but not so much in a republic that faces no monarchist opposition. TFD (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is basically what User:Rjensen posted. Allow me to frame it differently: if left and right in the U.S. are different from left and right in Oman, that could lead to confusion based on West-skewed cultural bias. Therefore, timeless and global standards are needed to delineate ideology on Wikipedia, and the only genuine standard is the original one. 71.41.136.212 (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The original standard developed in early 20th century France. TFD (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are still referring to sinistrisme: Thibaudet identified the phenomenon in 1931, his scope extended prior to the early 20th century, and Rémond observed it as late as 1981. I called for a return to the original ideological lines, and you raised a process that is not a standard at all, but a steady march leftward. Also, the French Revolution shook the world, while, besides a far-right uprising, which was nothing special in Europe, I couldn't name a single event from domestic French history between the wars. 72.177.240.152 (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not following you. The terms left and right to identify ideologies began in the early 20th century when conservatives sat on the right and socialists sat on the left. So if you're looking for a return to the original ideological lines, that's it. Under the "genuine" standard, Republicans would wouldn't be on the left. TFD (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

That the use of the left–right political spectrum expanded from referring to legislative ideologies to public ideologies as well during that period has no bearing on the correct placements of left and right, much less that they ought to be cemented there. As far as we are concerned, political parties unite around ideologies, so to consider a rightist party apart from its ideology here is just nitpicking. Based on what statements or policies do you place today's Republican Party to the right of early 20th century France? We need not construct an arbitrary scorecard for comparing apples and oranges, as the question was already posed in 1789: Monarchy or republic (incl. one of the crowned variety)? 71.41.136.212 (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See Marcel Gauchet's essay, "Right and Left", which explains the history of the terms. The concept ot the political spectrum did not exist until the early 20th century. The first party to be called left-wing was the French socialist party, which had entered the National Assembly in the mid to late 19th century. Where today's Republicans would have sat in the French National Assembly in 1789 is irrelevant to which part of the political spectrum they occupy. TFD (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Lincoln named as 'founder' of Republican Party
In all my readings I don't recall Lincoln being involved in the origins of the Republican Party. Given the body of work of the man, it's very possible I could simply have overlooked that possibility.

However, in the Wikipedia entry, "Political career of Abraham Lincoln (1849–1861)," under the subheading, "Emergence as Republican leader," third paragraph, fourth sentence, I read the following: "Lincoln resisted early attempts to recruit him to the new party, fearing that it would serve as a platform for extreme abolitionists.[21]" I believe this is a citation from a 2009 work by Ronald A. White called, "A.Lincoln: A Biography.

I have not read this book nor am I familiar with Mr. White but AM 'curious' about the discrepancy between this entry and the one I've just cited.

I hope some clarity will ensue.

DennisDittman (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Cross-link for convenience:
 * Generally anything in an infobox should be sourced to a footnote or verified in the body of an article, and in this case there's no citation and nothing in the article (that I can see) saying he was a founder of the party. The remaining question would be if he meets any common-sense definition of "founder" so clearly that no citation is needed, but I agree with your reasoning as to why he doesn't. I'm going to remove the statement, although anyone can re-add it if they can cite reliable sources referring to him as founder. Thanks for pointing this out. -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Gessen revert
Greetings! Regarding the edit summary "No indication this person is a notable expert or their opinion matters" on this revert: As the citation indicates, Gessen was being interviewed on All Things Considered, which according to List of most-listened-to radio programs is the second-most listened-to radio program in the United States. They are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, Masha Gessen, which notes they have received the National Book Award, among others, and that they recently published a book criticizing Trumpism, Surviving Autocracy. I guess I should have linked to the Wikipedia article about the author; is there anything else that would be needed in this article about the author rather than about the Republican Party? -- Beland (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no indication this person is an expert on foreign or domestic policy in the United States. In fact, there’s no indication of expertise or authority in any area except LGBT rights and Russia. I stand by my revert - their opinion doesn’t add anything of value, and extreme claims require actual evidence. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Masha Gessen is the go-to expert for The New Yorker on autocracy, and The New Yorker is inarguably a highly reliable source for American politics. Saying that there's no indication this person is a notable expert is plainly false, and I (once again) urge Toa Nidhiki to reflect on whether their personal biases are influencing their editing before instinctively reverting material critical of the party. I am restoring the Gessen quote. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would urge you not to revert an edit while discussion is in progress, per WP:BRD. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Gessen is non-binary, so the correct pronoun is "their", not "her". There was plenty of evidence to back up the claim in the cited source, whether or not you agree with the author's conclusions. -- Beland (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that Gessen can't be considered an expert for the sort of political claim being made here. Additionally, The New Yorker is not a great source for generalized statements about political parties.  This is really the sort of information that should be added only after we have a long view of the Trump years and we can decide how much was a real shift and how much of it was noise.  Gessen's article starts by noting they are an outspoken critic of Trump.  As such they are probably not the best source to quote for a generalized description of the GOP. Springee (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The New Yorker is not a great source for generalized statements about political parties Your opinion is noted, but it does not override multiple well-attended discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard which have found consensus otherwise. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't confuse your opinion of the New Yorker as "inarguably a highly reliable source" for such political claims with the actual RSP text which says it is a generally reliable source. If the New Yorker said "Trump attended 16 events with coal executives between April and June" I wouldn't have an issue with the claim.  Here we have a rather extraordinary claim being made by an "outspoken critic" who is a writer for the New Yorker.  That isn't the same thing as say a well respected political scientist at university X saying the same thing in a peer reviewed paper.  Springee (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * When I was adding the Gessen quote, I was wondering if it belonged in this article or in Trumpism. Looking at that article, it's clear "authoritarian" is a notable description of the political philosophy, along with "populist" and "nationalist", which are mentioned here. Also not mentioned in the Republican Party article are the terms "new facism", "fascist", "illiberal", and for Christian Trumpism, "cult of personality". Whether those terms are positive or negative depends on your political point of view, but the article on any political faction should include reactions from both supporters and critics. Neither of those should be written in Wikipedia's voice, which is why the opinion is attributed to Gessen. Perhaps Gessen should also be noted as a critic, just as the opinions of working-class white voters are attributed to supporters. The "audience of one" observation is interesting and somewhat unique, and it seems like it would fit more naturally into Trumpism. I'll add something there and to make the Republican Party article a better summary of Trumpism, try to weave in the other descriptions. -- Beland (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Gessen's opinion simply doesn't have weight. They aren't an subject matter expert.  Springee (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit puzzled why you say that, considering they just wrote a book on the subject, and they were invited to speak on a national news show as an expert on that subject. They are certainly not a neutral observer, given their strong opposition to authoritarianism, but to be an intelligent critic one does have to become familiar with the subject. Checking out the review blurbs collected by the publisher on the book's Amazon page it appears that the author has been accepted as a well-informed commentator by authoritative reviewers:
 * “When Gessen speaks about autocracy, you listen.” —The New York Times
 * “The Platonic ideal of the anti-Trump Trump book. . . . Offers discomfort and reassurance at once.” —The Washington Post
 * “Gessen’s decades-long experience covering the resurgence of totalitarianism in Russia puts them in a unique position to help Americans understand what is happening to the United States under President Donald Trump. . . . Gessen shows us that having the language to understand what is happening is the first step to surviving, and ultimately resisting, an autocratic future.” —The Nation
 * I'm not trying to promote the book here or necessarily agree with what Gessen is saying, but those publications don't say those things about random people on the street whose opinions have no influence in American political discourse. -- Beland (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we would need more detail on those reviews to decide if they are pop-politics reviews or really in depth. Again, I have a deep concern that their own article starts by saying "outspoken".  That generally suggests they are not representing a consensus view.  That might be fine in the more detailed Trumpism article but not in the higher level, general GOP article.  The book is new and it's possible it's being promoted by a few sources simply because they like the message rather than because it's well reasoned.  Waiting to see what hindsight says about Gessen's views would be better.  Honestly, that is true of most of the 2016 and later material in the article but there are so many windmills and only so much time.  Springee (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine, Trumpism is where I put this material. -- Beland (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Anti-democracy
I think it is time to update the part of this article where it discusses the anti-democratic turn of the Republican Party.

I think the article should include that: 1) On January 6, the majority of Republican representatives (139 of 202; 69%) voted to overturn the 2020 election. 2) Ever since the 2020 election, the Big Lie that the election was stolen has become accepted by the overwhelming majority of Republican voters (https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/09/16/politics/trump-big-lie-gop-election/index.html). 3) Republicans who tried to overturn the 2020 election are now running for Secretary of State offices in key swing states, in an attempt to obtain for themselves the power to overturn future election results that they don’t like (https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/09/16/politics/trump-secretary-of-state-big-lie/index.html). Mcleanm302 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The vote was on accepting the 20 electoral votes from Pennsylvania, which would not have changed the outcome of the election. Some Democrats also voted against accepting the electoral votes from Florida and Ohio in the 2000 and 2004 elections respectively. Democrats also made the false claim that Russian interference had swung the 2016 race to Trump. Hurling accusations against the other side, even with little or no evidence, has been a feature of American democracy since the beginning. You might want to read The Paranoid Style in American Politics (Richard Hofstadter, Harper's 1963), Your source is labelled as analysis and therefore is not considered a reliable source. TFD (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You wrote, "Democrats also made the false claim that Russian interference had swung the 2016 race to Trump." Uh, this isn't a "false" claim by any stretch of the imagination. Quite the opposite, actually.  We have solid evidence for what happened.  Newer evidence that was released just yesterday shows that Facebook was fully aware that Russian influence operations (troll farms) reached millions of people in the US on Facebook alone only a month before the 2020 election.  This is in addition to the same set of evidence from the 2016 election interference operation. There's also solid analysis showing that the GOP policy positions under Trump served the interests of Russia and attempted to break up the western (Atlantic) alliance, which was the exact, stated goal of Russian active measures from the very beginning (Rid 2020). What an amazing coincidence! Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I was speaking about the 2016 election, not the 2020 election, which incidentally Trump lost. Anyway, I was using it as an example of parties not accepting the certified outcomes of elections. Refusing to accept the outcome of an election doesn't necessarily make one anti-democratic. TFD (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To TFD's point:


 * The sitting Vice President of the United States has claimed that Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams won races they actually lost in 2018.
 * https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/mar/06/hillary-clinton/clinton-hot-seat-claim-thousands-were-turned-away-/ Hillary Clinton claimed she lost Wisconsin due to voter suppression and that Abrams won]. She also said that Biden shouldn't concede if he lost in 2020.
 * Tammy Baldwin claims Rs only won Wisconsin because of voter ID.
 * Cory Booker claimed that Rs only won Michigan because of Russia.
 * Elizabeth Warren has said Brian Kemp is an illegitimate Governor.
 * Stacey Abrams claims the 2018 election was stolen.
 * Pete Buttigieg claims that Stacey Abrams won in 2018 and that America isn't a democracy because of "voter suppression".
 * John Lewis claimed Trump was an illegitimate President and that Russia elected him. The only thing people remember about this debacle is Trump getting (understandably) mad at Lewis for this.
 * Bennie Thompson, who leads the 1/6 investigation committee, voted to reject Ohio's electoral votes in 2004 - which would have overturned the election.
 * Howard Dean, the chair of the DNC at the time, claimed the 2004 election results in Ohio might be illegitimate.
 * Like it or not, denying election results is pretty common nowadays. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 12:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the people you've cited didn't say that the election results were not legitimate, they said that the Democrat in the race would have won if voter suppression had not occurred. YttriumShrew (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So you think a legitimate election can have voter fraud? Just seems like a convenient excuse to excuse their denying election results here. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Denying election results has a long pedigree. According to a book about John Quincy Adams, the Democrats saw him as an "illegitimate president" because he lost the popular vote and became president through a "corrupt bargain" with the Whigs. "The administration have gone into power contrary to the voice of the nation...shall the government or the people rule?" Andrew Jackson asked. (Nation Builder: John Quincy Adams, p. 244.) Note that Trump had a picture of Jackson, rather than Benito Mussolini, placed in the Oval Office. In fact a number of sources not the parallels between Trump and Jackson. TFD (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC) No way is this being added. Every party and half the politicians would be "anti democracy" at that point, as we'd have to include Dems contesting the results on electoral count day in 2000, progressives trying to get the electors of the electoral college to change their votes from Trump to Hillary after Trump had already won the election in 2016 and all of the accusations of cheating, corruption and fraud in state, senate and local races, some of which have been detailed above, in recent years.

Also, the new suggested phrasing contains weasel words and fails WP:NPOV anyways. Davefelmer (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the phrasing of the proposed addition, but it is still important to say if a party is anti-democratic, no matter if the other one is or not. Arguing against the addition of that by pointing at the Democrats smacks of whataboutism, and doesn't affect how anti-democratic a party is. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)