Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 17

RfC: Trump era
Should The Trump era section include a final sentence that says substantially:

soibangla (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Striking original language and replacing with new language in bold. soibangla (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Here are some sources to consider:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)  soibangla (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

11) soibangla (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey (Trump era)

 * Yes, of course. Accurate and neutral. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)*
 * No, per discussion above. RfC is also also malformed, and previous discussion participants have not been notified. Requesting a speedy close. Toa Nidhiki05 15:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, in addition to the RfC above, I do think the unambiguous reference to a 'Big Lie' presents a WP:NPOV issue. If it is to be mentioned, I think it should be in the context of its sources, rather than explicitly stated, something like "several scholars and sources have referred to this assertion as a Big Lie." JackWilfred (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. However, it doesn't say Republicans (in general) were making efforts to take control of the administrative management of elections, but certainly Trump's administration and certain Republican operators. DN (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. As per the modified version.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, now that the wording has been amended. I still don't think we've arrived at precisely the right wording, but the statement is appropriately cited to reliable sources, so something like it should be in the article. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, in light of rewording. JackWilfred (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No The wording is still more polemical than informative. Why not just say "continued to believe the election had been stolen?" Readers have already been told persistently and repeatedly that Trump lost the election. And what is the relevance of that phrasing? It's redundant and implies without actually saying that Republicans believed the election was stolen because they had heard that repeatedly, whereas if they had only been told once or twice they would not have. Of course that may be true, but should be explicitly explained and properly referenced. TFD (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not just say "continued to believe the election had been stolen?" Because they are taking action based on the belief. Readers have already been told persistently and repeatedly that Trump lost the election In this article? We must not presume readers have read anything else here, or anywhere. They googled "Republican party" and here they are. soibangla (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No, per Toa Nidhiki05 summary. The previous discussion on this did not yield a consensus, and then those that participated in it were not notified of the RfC on the subject and invited to comment. I hope this doesn't turn into a let's have this discussion over and over again until one day the editors responding happen to line up in a way that gives consensus to add the change type of thing. Davefelmer (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , what previous discussion of this? The previous discussion began with a reversion based on "beyond slanted" that did not yield a consensus so I opened a formal RfC to solicit other participants. Is that a problem? Does it require any notifications? soibangla (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC) soibangla (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, something about Republican's continued lies about the 2020 election should be added (I'm not certain on the exact right wording). It's covered extensively in reliable sources. See this peer reviewed study for more evidence: Donald Trump’s Efforts to Undermine Public Trust in Democracy. Society. –– FormalDude  talk  09:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, but it needs to be made clearer that belief in the "Big Lie" is not universal among republicans.  KlammedyKlam:Nosh 21:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Neutral - Write it up, anyway you wish. PS - The United States has been through worst, in terms of its democracy being threatened. There was the American Revolution, Civil War, War of 1812, World War II & so on. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not as written - The sources don't appear to justify large majorities who continue to believe, though it might be large numbers who do so. It should be made clearer that these are large groups of Republicans, not of American voters. As others have said "continued to believe … persistently repeated falsehoods about election fraud in 2020" is hammering a point in needlessly. "Continued to believe/claim … there was election fraud in 2020"  would be good enough for me, but others might want at least one "falsehood" and it should be made clear that this was the 2020 Presidential election that was being referred to. I'm not sure that "and that democracy was at risk of failing" either adds anything or is endorsed by the sources - some of which tend to imply a naked "power grab" more than any wish to "save democracy", but does it actually matter whether these people are sincere? Pincrete (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources don't appear to justify large majorities 50.1% is a majority, but two-thirds of Republicans in the NPR/Ipsos poll is a supermajority. should be made clearer that these are large groups of Republicans I considered adding "of Republicans" but decided that was sufficiently evident and adding that would be superfluous, but I suppose we can add "of them." I don't see why "persistently repeated falsehoods" is hammering a point in needlessly because it's the repetition of the falsehoods that keeps them alive and persuades so many to continue believing them. it should be made clear that this was the 2020 Presidential election It does. We can add "presidential." not sure that "and that democracy was at risk of failing"...is endorsed by the sources The NPR/Ipsos poll language: U.S. democracy is "in crisis and at risk of failing."] and the reason it adds anything is because they are "making efforts to take control of the administrative management of elections" based on their false beliefs, which is really the crux of the matter: it's not just talk, it's action. does it actually matter whether these people are sincere? and I noted the irony of their reasoning but I chose not to overtly state that and guide readers to that conclusion but instead rely on readers to perceive it themselves as they see fit. I'm pretty sure that any attempt to suggest that they pose a risk to democracy would be met with a firestorm of objections. Let the reader decide. soibangla (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "and that democracy was at risk of failing." should be removed because it can be interpreted two different ways and is possibly contradictory. If it's saying that Republicans falsely believe democracy is at risk of failing, as you said, sources say democracy is in crisis and at risk of falling (though obviously for an opposite reason), so that's not necessarily false.
 * I'd also support adding something that specifies the Republicans as officeholders rather than just members/voters of the Republican party. –– FormalDude  talk  01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure I follow what you mean with that's not necessarily false. Is it presented as false? Or is it presented as their belief without any allusion to its veracity? We mention the persistent repeated falsehoods, but we don't explicitly connect that to their belief democracy might fail. The juxtaposition of "persistent repeated falsehoods" with "and that democracy was at risk of failing" doesn't necessarily denote causality, because they might have other reasons for that concern, as Democrats do. So should we be more explicit to say "which caused them concern that democracy was at risk of failing?"soibangla (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ultimately I think it should be removed; I don't think it needs to be explicitly stated. The main point is their continued falsehoods about the election, I don't really think we need to detail their perceptions/justifications surrounding the falsehoods. –– FormalDude  talk  06:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No per Toa Nidhiki05 and TFD. Springee (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not as Written Remove "Persistently Repeated" and it'd be far better than it is now. "Persistently repeated" kind of irks me, I can't really say why. It doesn't seem to be crucial anyways.  KlammedyKlam:Nosh 19:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum - What Pincrete said, that's gold.  KlammedyKlam:Nosh 21:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Trump era)
I could get behind the proposal if it was worded a bit differently. As EvergreenFir noted previously, rewording it to something like "persistently repeated falsehoods about election fraud in 2020" would be better.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also agree to this change of wording. Like with my informal suggestion above, I think we both believe it to be just one step too far, either requiring rewording or context. JackWilfred (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,000 bytes, the statement above (from the tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for  to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Does this fix it? soibangla (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It should do. We'll find out for sure when Legobot rebuilds WP:RFC/POL at 00:01, 13 january 2022 (UTC). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Rja12ww33. @Soibangla, I'd strongly advise that you adjust the RfC wording while it's still new. You can do that and have this RfC likely pass or you can not and have it likely fail. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose y'all are right. Amended. soibangla (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The last part about democracy failing seems confusing to me, considering that advocating on behalf of election fraud is basically the opposite of democracy. –– FormalDude  talk  07:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Joe Biden went on TV yesterday and basically said democracy is going to die if his election bill isn't passed. Not sure why that's being pinned on Rs here. Toa Nidhiki05 13:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't care what Joe Biden "basically said on TV yesterday". –– FormalDude  talk  16:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Who is advocating on behalf of election fraud? Trump and a large majority of the GOP insist there was massive fraud and the election was stolen from him, but the fraud is imaginary, a total fabrication, and in reality Trump tried to steal the election. That's The Big Lie. And Republicans are using The Big Lie as a pretense to restrict voting and "take over the election apparatus" because they believe they are demographically doomed if they don't take extreme measures to, as they assert, save democracy — from fabricated election fraud.




 * Their words and actions show they believe in limited democracy — for themselves, but not for those people. That is fundamentally anti-democratic. So it should not be surprising that Democrats also fear democracy is in peril — because they see what Republicans are trying to do. I'll say this again, just to be clear: I am not making a political argument. This has nothing to do with traditional paradigms of liberal/conservative or Democrats/Republicans. It has to do with one group of people using a Big Lie to advance their anti-democratic objectives, and it just so happens those people call themselves Republicans. soibangla (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "That is fundamentally anti-democratic."–yes, that's my entire point. So why are we saying that they're persistently repeating falsehoods that democracy was at risk of failing? Isn't that implied by their pushing of the "Big Lie"? It's contradictory and ironic that a group justifies their endangering of democracy with the claim that democracy is in danger. It just seems like potentially confusing wording that could be misinterpreted. So does "falsehoods about election fraud", that could go either way (is it false that election fraud occurred or is it false that elections were secure?) Something better, in my opinion, would be "persistently repeated falsehoods about the 2020 election being rigged/stolen". –– FormalDude  talk  16:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It certainly is contradictory and ironic but I chose not to overtly state that and guide readers to that conclusion but instead rely on readers to perceive it themselves as they see fit. I sought to avoid the appearance of synthesis. soibangla (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I definetely support including something about this, I just think the wording could be a little better. –– FormalDude  talk  19:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Two others have said the wording is not ideal. I'm open to alternatives. soibangla (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * These are basically opinion pieces by non-experts. It requires expert opinions.
 * The opinions appear to be alarmist. First, under the U.S. Constitution, presidential electors are chosen in a manner determined by each state. It doesn't matter if they are chosen by state legislators or by voters. Second, voting is already administered by partisan officials.
 * TFD (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Opinions of non-experts like Atty. General Bill Barr and 50+ judges of various US courts? Hmm?  SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the articles cited in the RfC were written by Bill Barr or by judges. TFD (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Two of the !votes that you appear to have counted as "no" were actually "not as written". Could you adjust your close so that we are not putting words in other editors' mouths that they did not say? Personally, I would read the discussion above as consensus to include something on the 2020 election, and it would help to frame future discussions if that were made explicit. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have changed it at your request. I went ahead and modified that there is a consensus for something, but that his something needs to be discussed further. I had overlooked how many of the no's were nearly completely complaints about the wording. My apologies. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Biased Language
dronebogus Do you have a reason for reverting the edit I made to this page? I thought it was a fair edit. Lincoln1809 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There was no reason for your edit. "Rank-and-file" is not a biased description of anybody. It simply means that they are ordinary members, not party leaders. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I didn't think of it that way. Thanks, Lincoln1809 (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Composition Section
Originally I had some questions as to why some recently added material was considered not to be NPOV. There didn't seem to be much opinion to it and I was able to easily find a cite that backed it up, but then I noticed this section starts to go off topic starting at "Towards the end of the 1990s...". As far as I know, the material that was deleted is backed up by RS, however, I think this section in the article might not be the best place for it. It seems as though the material in this part of the section begins by consisting of academic commentary but then devolves into something about the 2020 election. Any thoughts? DN (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you.
 * For anyone unaware, here is what I added:


 * “The Republican Party supported Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, filing more than 60 lawsuits to try to get it overturned. On January 6, 2021, 139 of 202 House Republicans (69% of the caucus) voted to overturn the election results. On February 4, 2022, the Republican National Committee defended the 2021 United States Capitol attack as an act of “ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse.”


 * How, exactly, was what I said “not neutral”? And if my statement was truly “not neutral,” then I would simply ask, “is there a *neutral* way to talk about the Republican Party supporting Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, and defending the Capitol attack?” Mcleanm302 (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe all of the material I mentioned falls under the Trump era and or Recent electoral history sections, respectively. Either would be better than it's current spot. DN (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thumbnail Images


These pics can be confusing and possibly misleading with regard to the population of republicans in the United States. I think the last Republican President to win the popular vote was Bush in 2004.

I propose adding an image that shows the population from a less biased perspective (See example image). DN (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been any other comments as to whether the images are even necessary, I believe WP:UNDUE tags for the current images in the composition section are in order. They appear misleading with regards to the general voting population in the US and do not appear to add any significant info or context to the text already in place. I'm fine with removing them or even adding additional relevant images that depict an accurate and similarly styled RS image of the actual voting populace. Please share your thoughts. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." DN (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello wonderful people, I was hoping some discussion would have occurred to avoid adding tags, but that's OK. I'll be back tomorrow. Cheers! DN (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I would prefer to have some discussion before making edits regarding this alleged issue, but no one seems to be for or against any changes here. My instinct is that the best way forward would be to simply add the example image I've provided instead of removing the older images, but I've been told that this article is already somewhat long by at least one other editor here. If they choose not to discuss it that is fine, but I would prefer to avoid reverts and unnecessary conflicts. Cheers! DN (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

After digging a bit more, I feel as though this might be a better alternative...DN (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm mixed on it. I'm not sure I like the proposed images but the original concern is valid. I would suggest a bold removal of the original and see if anyone protests.  Springee (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

RNC = party
The infobox for this article says the RNC is the "governing body" of the GOP. The first sentence of Republican National Committee reads: "The Republican National Committee (RNC) is a U.S. political committee that leads the Republican Party of the United States." The lede of the NYT reads:

This edit reads:

The edit was removed on the stated basis of "The RNC = the party" and I recommend it be restored. soibangla (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my edit was supposed to say RNC =/ party. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that Toa Nidhiki removed the edit not just once but twice, continuing his pattern of aggressive and dubiously justified reverts at this article. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have also noticed this pattern. soibangla (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So he removed the edit twice while it’s the subject of a talkpage discussion? I don’t see the issue here. Davefelmer (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Restore edit. This is clearly important information that is sourced to a myriad of RSP-greenlit outlets. Arguing that the Republican National Committee doesn't represent the Republican Party stretches the bounds of credulity (and AGF) more than a little. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't restore as originally added, fix the problems first. It seems like generally good content but it should be clear where it came from.  For example, the RNC is not the same as the House Republican Conference etc.  Additional sources/details about the concerns in question should also be added. That said, this is a very long article so it is reasonable to ask if this is RECENT/DUE. It would probably be better to use a source which doesn't mix in so much of the author's opinions.  Springee (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Text should reflect sources rather than editors' OR. It reads like Democratic Party propaganda. In fact the Democratic and Republican parties differ from parties in other countries. The RNC does not govern the party in the same way that the executive of the Liberal Party of Canada for example governs its party. The RNC for example cannot expel people from the party. It has no power over state parties. TFD (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Text should reflect sources rather than editors' OR. Yes.
 * The Republican Party on Friday officially declared the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and events that led to it “legitimate political discourse” – The New York Times. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Text should reflect sources It does. rather than editors' OR It doesn't. soibangla (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If the NYT reports "the party" instead of the RNC then it is inaccurate and shouldn't be used as a RS for this claim. The NYT link provided at the opening of this discussion says, "The Republican National Committee voted to censure Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for participating in the inquiry into the deadly riot at the Capitol." which means it's is consistent with multiple sources said this came from the RNC . soibangla's presentation of the NYT lead is misleading because both the article title and the next paragraph of the article say RNC. Springee (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the proposed text is misleading because the NYT article says, "After the vote, party leaders rushed to clarify that language, saying it was never meant to apply to rioters who violently stormed the Capitol in Mr. Trump’s name". The authors of the NYT are expressing doubt in their coverage but they did make it clear that the RNC isn't saying the people who rioted or stormed the capitol were part of the "citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse."  It's misleading (ie a bad edit) for us to suggest otherwise.  Springee (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Springee is correct here. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 21:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * rushed to clarify that language does not mean the NYT is expressing doubt about its coverage. Rather, it means the party was attempting to send two different messages to two different groups: the first version for Trump and his allies, then a walked-back version for everyone else when the first version received blowback. They seek plausible deniability that they really meant the first version. Some might characterize that as "spin" after a major miscalculation.soibangla (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Springee, if your concern is truly some sort of distinction between the RNC and the party as an idealized entity, then you should be happy to change (difference bolded)
 * to
 * Instead, you (and Toa Nidhiki) have removed it entirely. What is your justification for not mentioning this at all? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should direct this at the editor who restored disputed content. I've said what my concerns are and others have similar concerns.  Ignoring that the RNC is clear they are not referring to the rioters is a NPOV issue.  Do you have a proposed corrected text?  At the moment I made that edit I didn't have one.  Springee (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * From those cited sources "The text of the resolution itself made no such distinction."  McDaniel said. "They chose to join Nancy Pelosi in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol. Those final words -- "that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol" -- were not in the resolution adopted Friday."  "Her statement notably attempted to clarify the resolution's "legitimate political discourse" language, adding the words, "that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol.". I think including her claim regarding the censure should be included within the context of what the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack does...Is there RS confirming her claim that "ordinary citizens who had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol" are being targeted, prosecuted or investigated by said committee?   DN (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Though I would resist replacing GOP with RNC, your point about content being ended rather than amended is well taken and is also a recurring pattern I have seen on this and similar pages. I find such behavior by seasoned editors to be concerning as it tends to suggest an unexpressed rationale for content removal. soibangla (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? Sources, including the NYT, are clear this is the RNC that did this.  Please remember to AGF. Springee (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's also a matter of common sense that news media are reliable sources for what happened yesterday, not for analysis of the constitutions of political parties. In fact WP:NEWSORG specifically says that analysis in news media is rarely reliable and should be attributed in text. In this case you have to say, "According to Jonathan Weisman and Reid J. Epstein, writing in the New York Times, the Republican Party censured the two legislators." TFD (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you asserting every source we use must be qualified as to its authors? My read of NEWSORG says that opinion pieces are "rarely reliable for statements of fact" whereas "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." It's not "analysis" that Cheney and Kinzinger were censured. soibangla (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's analysis that RNC=Republican Party. That's what we are discussing, not who was censured. TFD (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

When referring to the actual censure of anyone, it would make sense to me to specifically refer to the part of the organization performing the censure. (In this case, the RNC.) My 2 cents.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing. There doesn't appear to be any problem with "In February 2022, the Republican National Committee censured the only two Republicans serving on the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, asserting they were participating in a "persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse."" Endwise (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Considering the RNC and GOP aren't what anyone here would call mutually exclusive, and the fact that we all agree this is RS content in the body where it's supposed to be, I do not see the problem here. The RNC is THE "governing body of the GOP". DN (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * In any case, we can't have this edit warring. I've protected the article for a week. Feel free to contact me for unprotection as soon as consensus is reached. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC).

This seems to be more appropriate for the RNC article rather than the GOP one IMO. Davefelmer (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Both would be appropriate for reasons that go beyond any of our opinions. DN (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This cite seems to cover the bases... In February 2022, the Republican National Committee voted to censure two Republicans for serving in the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, asserting they were participating in the "persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse." Since then, certain House Republicans and Trump allies defended the resolution while others have refuted the description. An RNC official stated the GOP is referring to the "legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol" and claimed that the January 6th Committee is a "Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens" - DN (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the question of DUE still applies to a lot of this content. This is very much in the RECENT weeds for what is supposed to be a high level article on the GOP.  That said, I think this is pretty good.  We shouldn't use terms like "claimed" as that implies doubt.  Also there is no reason to include the ordinary citizen quote twice.  Also, I think this Reason.com article is a good source here .  It notes that many news sources have incorrectly claimed that legitimate political discourse was referring to the rioters vs the people the Jan 6th committee is actually investigating.  The article goes on to mention some of the things the Jan 6th committee is investigating and their likely motives. Taking the above I would propose:
 * In February 2022, the Republican National Committee voted to censure two Republicans for serving in the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, stating they were participating in a "Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse." After the initial censure the RNC released a statement clarifying that they did not include the violence at the Capitol as legitimate political discourse.  Some prominent Republicans objected to the censure.
 * This adds a bit more context and uses impartial language per SAID. Springee (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Clarifying remarks made by the RNC afterwards are helpful context. Your text looks good, though perhaps "Some prominent Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, objected to the censure." would be better as McConnell has received a significant amount of media attention over his statements. Endwise (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The article has one sentence on the amendment ending slavery, one mention of Teapot Dome and nothing on prohibition, female suffrage or Watergate, yet we have an entire paragraph explaining that the Republican Party caucus did not join the 1/6 Committee, two members joined anyway, the RNC censured them, the minority leader objected to that and different Republicans have expressed different opinions. The articles needs better focus. TFD (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "I think the question of DUE still applies to a lot of this content" How does WP:DUE apply? The RNC chose the language in the resolution, and are dealing with criticism of their decision to do so...Not to sound like a broken record but, again, we all have multiple RS that already confirms this. "This is very much in the RECENT" WP:RECENT see WP:SUPPLEMENTAL. It's meant to help editors with less experience for less established articles to keep them from just being piles of less relevant headlines. Once again, it also focuses on using RS and determining what goes in the LEDE, not the BODY. "We shouldn't use terms like "claimed" as that implies doubt." Exactly why it was purposeful. Are there any RS confirming Ronna McDaniel's CLAIMS? i.e. "the Jan 6th committee is a democrat led cabal of satanists blah blah blah". No?... I'll wager that's a clear-cut POV CLAIM, therefore kind of a non-starter. Let's just try to avoid any possible POV from all angles. "Also there is no reason to include the ordinary citizen quote twice." Agreed. In fact, I believe the best way to go is to pare it down to it's bare essentials so we can all move on. Something to this effect...
 * In February 2022, the Republican National Committee voted on a resolution to censure two Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, for serving in the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. Shortly after, the RNC received criticism regarding the language used in the resolution. RNC officials have disputed it's interpretation by critics while GOP members have had mixed reactions. DN (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My comments about DUE are in line with TFD's comment. I'm not sure any discussion of the Jan 6 Committee should be in the GOP article.  Zoom out and understand this is an article about a political party that has been around for about 160 years, that is the forest that makes up this article's possible content.  We are spending a lot of time describing the tree branch closest to our own faces.  Understandable as it's what is right in front of us but the article should be the whole forest rather than what is in front of our noses.  However, I also understand that if we accept that this content is DUE in the total article then we can at least try to agree on what the specific text should be.  As for your second proposal, no, I would object to that one.  The Reason source doesn't cast doubt on the claim that the RNC's resolution was meant to refer to the people being investigated by the Jan 6th committee.  In this case I the extra detail and sources in my proposal (with 's suggestions) provides a clearer explanation of the controversy.  Springee (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's much harder to AGF when you are busy making a WP:POINT, instead of working towards consensus ...I do not condone using this talk page as a personal forum, so I'm just going to sit back and see what the community says. Cheers! DN (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you feel the need to question good faith then perhaps I have failed to make my point clear. You questioned why I would mention DUE.  Like  I'm not sure any of this content is DUE in the general Republican article.  However, that doesn't mean we can't have a productive discussion regarding how such content is included based on the assumption it is included. I am working towards that consensus.  I'm not sure how any of this would qualify as FORUM.  Springee (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * DN, you struck some of your comment but have left the part about FORUM. Can you highlight what you think is a FORUM comment? Springee (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Great point TFD. There is a little too much RECENTISM/PRESENTISM in a lot of these articles.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Before anyone brings up WP:NOTABILITY Also regarding WP:DUE "The move to censure Cheney and Kinzinger marks the first time the national RNC has had a formal censure for an incumbent member of Congress backed by its members." (just under the pic of Cheney) - DN (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Congress voted in a voice vote to censure Rep. David Schweikert in 2020, Speaker Gingrich was censured and fined by a vote of 395-28 vote in 1997. Sen. David Durenberger was censured by a vote of 96-0 in 1990. Presumably most Republicans supported these censures. The most famous censure of anyone in America was Joe McCarthy - but it's not mentioned in the article either. While it may be unprecedented for the RNC and should be mentioned in that article, it's not unprecedented for Republicans to vote to censure their own. Democrats do it too. TFD (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How many of those individuals were censured exclusively by their own party for political disloyalty? soibangla (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with policy, ie WP:RS? Assuming that because something similar that wasn't included "way back when..." sounds like an excuse to exclude RS and bares resemblance to Faulty generalization imo. Perhaps there was consensus against inclusion, or maybe it's just that no one brought it up, who knows. I have yet to see an argument that actually defines or explains why putting this RS in the body (not the lede) is not WP:DUE. Consensus is very important, but as far as I know, it should not get in the way of policy. If we can't agree on basic policy then that makes it almost impossible to gain consensus and improve this article. WP:SR "The bedrock of Wikipedia is reliable sources of information". DN (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So often when we say DUE/WEIGHT we really mean PROPORTION (which is part of the NPOV policy). WP:V (policy) specifically notes that RS (guideline) is a minimum for inclusion, not a guarantee.  Your concern that TFD's examples are from the past and this is contemporary is not a policy based argument.  In fact it's the thing that RECENT says we should avoid.  We should be giving no more weight to today's GOP than we would to the material on the GOP of 50 years ago.  Anyway, PROPORTION is part of NPOV and thus is a policy concern.  It is very much reasonable to ask if this material should be included at all given the article subject could fill several volumes and we are meant to summarize it (even the body is just a summary of other sources). Springee (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Your concern that TFD's examples are from the past and this is contemporary is not a policy based argument." My argument was referring to Faulty generalizations, not that past decisions are less relevant than the ones in the present. We should also try to avoid using Straw man arguments as well. Cheers! DN (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * From WP:DUE "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." DN (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Since there has been no further discussion or explanation as to why this isn't DUE, I'm going to share another version along with 2 more citations in case anyone want to peruse them... the conversation politico. As far as I can tell, this has already been covered by all the major news organizations, including FOX, and many of their affiliates. I still prefer to leave out any contentious POV language and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Thanks. I've been pinged for advice. There's a good deal of discussion, but by now not very many people discussing. Consequently any provisional painfully-allowed version between those still standing (DN and Springee) can be toppled by a single editor who takes little other part than to revert the article. (Yes, I'm referring to Toa Nidhiki05, compare .) In such a situation, I'm afraid an RfC seems to me the way to go, in order to get more eyes. Even if it does look depressingly like shooting mosquitoes with a cannon. Bishonen &#124; tålk 17:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC).
 * "In February 2022, the Republican National Committee voted on a resolution to censure two Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, for serving in the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. While some prominent Republicans objected to the censure, the RNC received some criticism regarding the language used in the resolution which RNC officials have disputed as a misinterpretation. This marked the first time the RNC has had a formal censure for an incumbent member of Congress backed by party members."  - DN (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sold on DUE but I will address that at the end. What is the reason for mentioning this at all (I don't mean that facetiously)?  Is this worthy of mention because it is the first time the RNC had a formal censure...?  If so then let's drop the part about wording entirely.  That's really only worth mentioning if we give it a bit more detail.  The the Republican leadership was not fully on board is probably worth noting.  But if this censure is significant per the reasons in the last sentence then it would make sense that we would add other censures to the article.  Alternatively, since the article is already long and this is a detail of a detail, why not trim things down to say the RNC censured the two house Republicans on the committee and leave it at that?  I do think the why is probably more significant that any claims of confused language or that this is the first time etc.  Still, that gets back to the question about why we are putting so much emphasis on recent events but that might suggest removing more than just this content.  I don't think your proposal is good but absent other objections I wouldn't revert it.  Springee (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And I'm still not sold on UNDUE, and still no policy/guideline based explanation IMO. What is the reason for mentioning this at all (I don't mean that facetiously)? Then how do you mean it? You obviously seem confident that you are right, yet now seem somehow bewildered, as though we haven't discussed this ad nauseam through the apparent wall of text above. This has taken up a lot of valuable time, both yours and mine and anyone that has to sort through this giant mess. Is this worthy of mention because it is the first time the RNC had a formal censure...? If so then let's drop the part about wording entirely. Let me get this straight and please correct me if I'm wrong here. It seems that, now, you are only willing to even consider inclusion, as long as we don't mention any criticism that was mentioned and cited in nearly all the RS provided to you, in favor of only mentioning the historic formal censure which may have been mentioned in, I believe, just a few RS that were provided? Are you not examining the evidence that has been expounded upon specifically for your benefit? Alternatively, since the article is already long and this is a detail of a detail, why not trim things down to say the RNC censured the two house Republicans on the committee and leave it at that? Yep, that seems like what you are suggesting IMO. Maybe it's just me, I really don't know what to say at this point. I do think the why is probably more significant that any claims of confused language or that this is the first time etc. (EDIT) What do you mean by "claim" again? Almost all the "sources" are claiming it is, shall we say, confusing, but that's exactly how I worded it, as not to appear in wiki-voice. I also included that this was in fact disputed by the RNC. DN (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I usually try to just stick to policy guidelines and include all relevant info to try to avoid any appearance of cherry-picking, but maybe I should just chill out about that stuff. Still, that gets back to the question about why we are putting so much emphasis on recent events but that might suggest removing more than just this content. Is that like "begging the question"? Why we are going back to RECENTISM again? Are you arguing that because the article is "long" we should start omitting ALL reports about criticism despite being from the same RS the material that you might be willing to consider, is from? I don't think your proposal is good but absent other objections I wouldn't revert it. I feel as though we are both treating this way to much like a WP:BATTLE, and it shouldn't be. I will only add what you are comfortable with at the moment, but we may need to have an RfC. I will refer to Bishonen on that, and hope they can help guide us through this with more efficiency than we have managed. DN (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * First, I see you have added your proposed text. I don't think it is DUE but absent more than just and I saying as much I wouldn't revert as UNDUE. I don't think DUE has been satisfied and as the news cycle has moved away from this story I'm more convinced that this is RECENT material. A problem with content like this is the GOP is a widely discussed topic so the fact that we have multiple sources reporting this basic news and the follow on clarification establishes that this should probably be somewhere in Wikipedia but not that it rises to the level of being due in a summary of a 160 year old political party. It is a forest for the trees and bushes question. We started with a debate regarding "is this a bush or a tree". Editors weigh in on that question but it wasn't until TFD zoomed out and asked, is this important given the topic is the forest? Few editors actually addressed that question as it was asked later in the discussion.
 * Your newly added text is good in that it's IMPARTIAL but it isn't clear what larger informational structure it is meant to support other than listing a current event. It implies a reason why it is included ("his was the first time the RNC has had a formal censure for an incumbent member of Congress backed by party members"). However, it wasn't included in a section about various examples of the GOP censuring members. Nor was it in a section on the GOP concerns/response to the Jan 6 commission. The current section seems to just be a historical event by event telling with no additional structure for how this is relevant to the overall article other than it happened recently. This play by play addition of reported facts/responses is a poor way to structure an article but also once that plagues Wikipedia. Far too often editors want something in an article because it makes the subject look good/bad even if it's not significant to the larger topic. If an editor can't say how content supports the larger topic then the content is probably undue for the article or they need to think more about why it is DUE. Springee (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've revered the edit as discussion is ongoing. Clear violation of UNDUE and RECENT. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've edited this talk page 212 times, more than any editor, but thanks for the shoutout. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (If you're talking to me, please consider indenting accordingly.) I was referring to your input in this discussion; not to your contributions since 2011. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC).

Adding comments by former VP Mike Pence on the "legitimate political discourse" language "Former Vice President Mike Pence has defended the Republican National Committee censure of GOP Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, arguing that the resolution referring to Jan. 6 as "legitimate political discourse" was misconstrued. ABC-NEWS Feb 18...DN (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Adding source The Hill DN (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Another recent cite NBC news that may show this is likely an ongoing topic as opposed to WP:RECENT or WP:NOTNEWS. The censure resolution described Cheney and Kinzinger as “participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.” RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel later described it as discourse “that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol.” ...DN (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

As we continue the RfC, I am still having trouble getting respondents to help me to understand better, the possible connection between the content in question and how WP:RECENT may apply. So I have decided to check with the teahouse to see if there are any RECENTISM experts that could possibly give me some perspective that I seem to be lacking here. I was non specific and requested that anyone answering do not involve themselves, as it would be considered a WP:CANVASS violation. DN (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC Break
I'm still struck by one a couple of the comments made in the RfC. The main problem here may be that the article is a mess, it is difficult to add notable content because there's no clear place to put it. Thus, I suggest a rework that gives a simpler and clearer outline of the history, the working parts that make up the GOP and how they were formed. Preferably a linear form with history at the top and current events at the bottom. Thoughts? DN (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * TFD, this seems like a good opportunity to start work on adding the things you mentioned as equally or possibly more important (Watergate - prohibition etc). I'm happy to work on this with you as we wait for RfC results. DN (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I have reached out to the RECENTISM project page for guidance to help us figure out how it may or may not apply to this issue. Again, I asked participants not to involve themselves per WP:CANVASS. DN (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We should agree to an outline and decide how much should be history and how much about the party today. Then we should look at sources to determine proper weight. What happens with these articles is that someone always wants to happen the latest news story. In the end I expect that Trump's legacy will be his style and that he beat the establish to win the primaries and election. But little of what he did was significant, unlike Nixon, Reagan or George W. Bush. TFD (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No previous Republican president mobilized a mob of criminals attempting to reverse his defeat for reelection, and no previous president of either party mobilized his party's congressional delelegations to suppress investigation and/or prosecutions for that.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See Brooks Brothers riot and Watergate. I hope that Trump runs again and the Dems put up a progressive so I can watch you do a 189 on Trump. TFD (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You'll have to excuse the rest of us, but that's unintelligible. Could you state in plain English?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * One hundred and eighty degrees (AKA one-eighty). Meaning a change of perspective, an "about face", a turn. At least that's the more plausible misdial than one-eight-seven. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * TFD remember that personal opinions are less relevant than what reliable sources say. It is worrisome that this is the route you keep steering talk pages towards. "Zoom out". DN (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I notice that you did not direct your remarks toward SPECIFICO. It is however a problem that we have to guess what weight the textbooks will give to what's reported in today's news. RECENTISM, which you mentioned, suggests a ten year rule. Will something we add today be important in 10 years time? We are able to discuss our opinions on this. I believe that in 10 years time, the U.S. Civil War will be considered a more important event in American history than the hooliganism of 1/6. You and SPECIFICO disagree. I cannot show you a textbook published in the year 2032, but maybe you have a reliable source that will prove me wrong. TFD (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Everyone needs to put down their WP:CRYSTALBALL. Tagging things as RECENTISM right of the bat seems like the opposite of how RECENTISM should be applied, if at all (see references to lead on the RECENTISM project page). IMO RECENTISM should usually be applied IF, after a certain period time, it seems irrelevant and UNDUE. Not immediately, as some editors seem to enjoy doing. Not to mention, most of these editors simply cite RECENTISM without any real context for said issue, which bares a striking similarity to Wikilawyering. I have gone as far as reaching out to the RECENTISM-project-page and even the tea house, and still no responses....Frustrating to say the least. DN (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * TFD, that is a pretty nonsense line of thinking. We have no view back from the future. So we gather evidence, we evaluate current sources vs. precedent, and we write articles that reflect our best estimate of NPOV. It's utterly useless to say that we can't write an article without being time-travelers. That's first. Second, please don't toss a straw man like "more important than the civil war" into it. If you want to write something in user space, you could invite us to come look. Surely you know you have no hint of anyone here saying that the Trump insurrection will be considered more important than the civil war in 2032. That's just a ridiculous use of this talk page.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * When you cite policies, guidelines, etc., you should take care that they are actually talking about the points you want to make. WP:CRYSTALBALL does not say we cannot consider the future significance of events when deciding to leave them out. And RECENTISM doesn't say that we have to wait for textbooks to be published before we can determine something lacks long-term significance. There would be no need for it, because by then the events would not longer be RECENT. RECENT says, "it is appropriate to be aware of balance and historical perspective." Unfortunately, some editors do not consider historical perspective because immediate events have a greater impact on them. They don't remember or forgot or never knew that Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush all attracted the same derision from Democrats as Trump. But over time, all of them were rehabilitated as the next Republican president took their place as the worst president in history. TFD (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In the case of the Trump insurrectionist Republicans it is not a matter of derision. What's noteworthy is their goals and their tactics. BTW, I'd be interested to see sources that discuss the "rehabilitation" of Nixon Reagan and either Bush, or what you think that means. Surely you don;t mean like deniazification? Do you mean a changing consensus as to their policies in office? I'm not really aware of that either, except that I suspect it's more widely understood today the extent to which Reagan and Bush-2 were used by various interests to pursue economic and foreign policy agendas they scarcely understood.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * TFD that reminds me of The pot calling the kettle black. See WP:CRYSTALBALL - "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumption" - "Wikipedia does not predict the future." - "It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses." Cheers! DN (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I assumed you were familiar with this. Here's a link to an article in Salon by David Masciotra where he explains it. You might also be interested in his comments about Liz Cheney. TFD (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't know Salon was held in high regard as far as RS goes for political topics. Interesting. DN (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Salon is rather slumming insofar as we aspire to be the best and the best informed encyclopedists, I'm afraid.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

RS is a policy for inserting information into articles. It's perfectly fine to provide an accessible analysis by an established journalist to another editor explaining a topic they claim to be unaware of. Obviously analysis by journalists, whether in Salon or the Washington Post, which has published his articles, fails rs and we would need a peer-reviewed paper or academic textbook to insert this material. Masciotra btw teaches writing and politics at the University of St. Francis and Indiana University Northwest. You could also follow the links he provides to see if his conclusions are supported. See for example "George W. Bush’s favorable rating has pulled a complete 180", Ryan Struyk Jan. 22, 2018: "His favorability mark among Democrats has soared from only 11% in February 2009 to a majority 54% now." TFD (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing much of any substance in that piece.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on your familiarity with reliable sources, do you think that the image of Nixon, Reagan and Bush has improved since they left office? TFD (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, no, no.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But little of what he did was significant, unlike Nixon, Reagan or George W. Bush. I think you're underestimating the historical significance of his refusal to concede the election and the January 6th riots. For comparison, what do you think is the most notable thing about Rutherford B. Hayes? What aspect of his presidency is most frequently covered and discussed today?  Spoiler, we devote an entire paragraph to it in his lead. Anything unusual that happens around elections and transfers of power tends to attract a great deal of long-term attention because it becomes a reference point for the progress and state of American democracy. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that in the long run, the January 6th riots will be the most significant aspect of Trump's presidency (and I think many sources today are covering it as such.) The other things are largely "temporary" in the sense that they are only meaningful to us because they touch on current political divides - ie. you say that it was shocking that Trump won the nomination at all, but to someone years from now that will have no significance because they will have no context to understand why (in the same way nobody but scholars remembers or cares what Tilden or Hayes stood for or the factions in their parties.)  "Something like this happened once before in 2020", OTOH, is going to be something that gets brought up every time comparable disruptions happen in the future. I mean - obviously we don't know for certain, we're not a crystal ball, etc.  But that is how many sources are treating it now, and I don't think you make a good case that they are wrong to be treating it that way, so I think we should cover it with that degree of importance until / unless there's an indication that that is changing. To me your argument of "this will all fade away with time" seems both more crystal-bally (ie. it doesn't reflect the trajectory or scope of current coverage, so you're trying to use your personal analysis to argue against that coverage) and like a pretty weak argument (ie. it seems more likely everything else will fade.) It's also worth pointing out that we're over two years out by now, with plenty of academic sources and so on - it's hard to call it WP:RECENTISM iat this point. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly what Trump did in office is significant to his article, that does not mean it is as significant to this one. as you say, we don't have a crystal ball so cannot know how 1/6 will be remembered. But we know in Bush v. Gore that Gore challenged the results and that Republican officials used violence in order to stop the count. In Watergate, the Republicans ordered a break-in at the DNC as part of their opposition research which incidentally lead to the removal of the president.
 * We now have information about the alleged insurrection plot. An extremist group thought that they could provoke a fight with antifa (who never showed up), causing the president to declare a state of emergency (which he never did). Police and soldiers would then launch an insurrection and invite the extremists to help them. Of course this was all fantasy and the Republican Party was not involved. You can't even tie it to Trump's speech, since the plans were made before.
 * In the late 1700s, many Federalists were convinced that the Democratic Republicans were controlled by the Illuminati and would bring in a French style Reign of Terror, while their opponents were convinced the Federalists would bring in a despotic monarchy. This type of paranoid conspiracism has been a feature of U.S. politics from the beginning.
 * TFD (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I have reached out to an officer for some help regarding clarification of RECENTISM. I have also made it clear not to violate WP:CANVAS. DN (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand how WP:CANVAS works, and you can't stop anyone here from participating there. Regardless, this entire point is moot as inclusion was soundly rejected in the RfC below. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 12:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't aware the RfC has been closed...(looks at the RfC below)...Can I safely assume you think I don't know how an RfC works either? DN (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It expired a couple of weeks ago, yes. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, so expired = closed? Funny, I didn't see where it said "inclusion was soundly rejected in the RfC". Could you provide your link to that part, or was it in the one you originally provided? 21:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2022
"Beginning with the its first president" at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph to "Beginning with its first president" 72.65.17.211 (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Big Business moving left
One editor complained about this text I added from the New York Times: ''Historically the party always had strong bases in the local business community, as well as the national Big Business corporations that emerged in the Gilded Age after the Civil War. That has been changing in the 21st century, as much of Big Business has moved left. Ross Douthat explains the shift: "The Republican Party in the Trump era remained a mostly pro-business party in its policies but its constituencies and rhetoric have tilted more working class and populist, with many Romney Republicans drifting into the Democratic coalition....much of corporate America has swung culturally into liberalism’s camp. That process was well underway a decade ago, but it’s been accelerated by anti-Trump backlash, the more left-leaning commitments of big business’s younger customers and (especially) younger employees, and the relative ease with which the radical-sounding language of identity politics can be assimilated to corporate management techniques. As a consequence, today’s G.O.P. is most clearly now the party of local capitalism — the small-business gentry, the family firms.... Much of the party elite wish to continue doing business with big business as before. But the party’s base regards corporate institutions — especially in Silicon Valley, but extending to more traditional capitalist powers — as cultural enemies, with too much consolidated power and too much interest in pressuring, censoring and propagandizing against socially conservative views and policy."''

The rule in Wikipedia is that conflicting reliable sources should both be included and not deleted. The critic said there were lots of other views but did not specify any of them. They also falsely states that the quote " misleadingly suggests that the party does not have pro-corporate business views." false--it explicitly says "Much of the party elite wish to continue doing business with big business as before." and emphasizes the grass roots gop voters turning against Big Business (Disney anyone?, Twitter?) Rjensen (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You placed this at the top of the political positions, misleading readers into thinking the party is no longer a pro-business party, contradicting the vast academic literature on the topic and going against a recent RFC. It's beyond my understanding why a pundit's speculation as to the constituencies of the party (and unsubstantiated claims about which kind of businesses the party supports) belongs at the top of the political positions section or any section of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * they you wanted the analysis kept but moved lower. Instead you erased all of it. Douthet/NY TIMES did not mislead any reader--it just that one editor misread the paragraph. The text was not "at the top" of the article it is the middle under section 3 "Political positions": It belongs there because it touches on many of the subtopics and provides a long historical context. Rjensen (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There seems to be no consensus and it cites an opinion piece. I suggest self-reverting. DN (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Douthat is a well established analyst of current events --full time on NY TIMES--and an expert on the GOP with a book on its voters --That makes him a reliable source. ( There are no wiki rules against "opinion pieces".) The problem here is that the critic misread the article and assumed falsely it stated "facts" that it actually explicitly disavowed (it says lots of GOP leaders support business--it's the GOP voters who are moving away from Big Business, especially Silicon Valley high tech. Rjensen (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how it isn't using WP:VOICE (I just saw the attribution) WP:UNDUE (because of the length for one opinion) to seemingly insert WP:BIAS? This also seems to ignore WP:Consensus. If you went into detail as to how it can't be easily viewed as any of these things, it might help, maybe. DN (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how it isn't using WP:VOICE (I just saw the attribution) WP:UNDUE (because of the length for one opinion) to seemingly insert WP:BIAS? This also seems to ignore WP:Consensus. If you went into detail as to how it can't be easily viewed as any of these things, it might help, maybe. DN (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I was also under the impression this article is very long and we need to be very picky about what goes in. Ross Douthat does not seem very notable. DN (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Since there's no response as of yet, in the interest of consensus and following BRD (not BRRD), someone has reverted until we hopefully get to some agreement, if any. DN (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the article should include the observation that big business now tends to favor the Democrats because of its positions on social issues, immigration and other issues, while the Democratic Party has become more strongly pro-big business. Of course this is all relative, since both parties are strongly pro-big business. I would however avoid using the term left, which can mean different things, in particular opposition to big business. TFD (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree that this is worthy of inclusion. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "big business" is undefined, just like "left". I am not a big fan of Douthat, but his opinion column does summarize a valid and widespread POV worth attributed inclusion. More to the point is the relationship of Citizens United to Republican court packing and its enabling access to the party's conservative and far-right donors.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I must correct one glaring misconception in Rjensen's initial statement. Where they say "The rule in Wikipedia is that conflicting reliable sources should both be included and not deleted", this is 100% wrong.  Per WP:ONUS, being reliably sourced, while necessary, is not in itself sufficient that some bit of information, there also needs to be consensus that the information itself is compliant with other Wikipedia P&Gs.  In this case, there seems to be concerns that there are other concerns regarding the text, including violations of WP:RSOPINION, WP:UNDUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, etc.  Whether those concerns are valid or not, WP:ONUS is clear: the material should remain out of the article until such time as those concerns are dealt with.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should also add the political positions of Donald Trump, seeing as he seems to hold much of the sway in the GOP. DN (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

To further support my position on the effect Donald Trump has had in the GOP, it is also notable that The RNC has unanimously voted to forego the Convention Committee on Platform. . DN (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

So, since there hasn't been much discussion, and I think everyone has their own ideas about what should go in, it may be simpler to start by focusing on Political positions of the Republican Party as a blueprint. Any thoughts? DN (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly object to this. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 22:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To what? Please be more specific. DN (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Surely you don't object to thoughts. XD DN (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that New York Times piece cited by is an accurate description of what is happening in America. However, it is WP:UNDUE and WP:TOOSOON to include it in the article because the overwhelming majority of scholarly sources still say that the Republican Party is the party of big business. This will definitely change by the end of the decade, but we cannot do anything right now. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)