Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 21

Voter rights in the body
, please restore the long standing consensus text then make your case for a change here. Two editors have challenged the change you are making. The source, MJ, doesn't support a generalized statement that "political analysts suggest..." That phrasing implies that this is basically a universal opinion among analysists. MJ, a less than neutral source, only mentions the Brennan Center for Justice as making this claim. It doesn't say this is a widely shared view across the political spectrum of analysists. The original, long standing text that "Opponents" view this as is correct and supported by the source. Finally, please follow BRD. You first made this change less than 24 hr ago. It has been challenged thus doesn't have consensus. The correct next step is to make the case here. Springee (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Starting a new section since this is about different content than the section above.
 * None of the sources label any of the statements that they support as the viewpoints/arguments of opponents, they all state them as facts. Brennan Center for Justice is a political analysis group, so it is accurate to say that their statement is political analysis, as is the case with the other two sources as well. To downplay these facts as being the opposing view is a false equivalence that gives WP:FALSEBALANCE. –– FormalDude  (talk)  02:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Brennan is a left-wing think tank. It's far from a neutral source for analysis - it's akin to citing the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation. Toa Nidhiki05 02:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Brennan is far from the only one to make this claim. We could easily use this source from a Cornell political scientist instead:
 * The Politics of Voter Suppression: Defending and Expanding Americans' Right to Vote. –– FormalDude  (talk)  02:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you searched for sources supporting the change? I don't oppose changing the wording from "Opponents" to "political analysists who oppose" or similar but it's not OK to make it look like this is a universal view. Springee (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have indeed searched for sources supporting the change, and I am confident that these statements are the mainstream view of reliable sources and portrayal of them as anything less would be false balance on our part. –– FormalDude  (talk)  03:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But that is your OR, not what the sources say. I'm sure you know we need to stick with what the sources say, not what we are certain to be correct. Springee (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My proposed change is what the sources already say. The current text is wrong, nobody who made the claims in the sentence are an "opponent" of it, they are neutral political analysts. And my evaluating of multiple sources to see if the majority verify a statement is actually the opposite of original research. –– FormalDude  (talk)  03:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a good compromise might be "many/some political analysts and opponents..." because quite frankly, I don't see a source saying (point-blank) this is a view held by all (or even a majority) of analysts.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Stating that "political opponents say" would be a suitable compromise. Toa Nidhiki05 13:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the sources verify that though. –– FormalDude  (talk)  14:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Two of the sources are described in their wiki articles as "progressive" and "liberal", so I think it's fair to call them "critics" when we state what they say here. BTW, I would support replacing "opponents" with "critics" or "critical sources". The sources clearly are being critical, but describing them as "opponents" kind of implies they're biased. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

More sources that support a change
–– FormalDude  (talk)  03:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post: How GOP-backed voting measures could create hurdles for tens of millions of voters, Republicans want to make it much harder to vote. That strategy could backfire., What the GOP voting restrictions actually do vs. what proponents claim
 * The New York Times: G.O.P. and Allies Draft ‘Best Practices’ for Restricting Voting, Republicans Aim to Seize More Power Over How Elections Are Run, In Statehouses, Stolen-Election Myth Fuels a G.O.P. Drive to Rewrite Rules, Why the Georgia G.O.P.’s Voting Rollbacks Will Hit Black People Hard
 * The Associated Press: ‘An all-hands moment’: GOP rallies behind voting limits, As GOP makes it harder to vote, few Republicans dissent, GOP lawmakers seek tougher voting rules after record turnout
 * Politico: After Trump’s loss and false fraud claims, GOP eyes voter restrictions across nation, GOP pushes voting restrictions, while Democrats back expansions, State Republicans push new voting restrictions after Trump’s loss
 * NPR: After Record 2020 Turnout, State Republicans Weigh Making It Harder To Vote, Why Republicans Are Moving To Fix Elections That Weren't Broken, Voting Reforms May Look Very Different Between Republican And Democratic States, Republican Voter Suppression Efforts Are Targeting Minorities, Journalist Says
 * CBS News: Proposals to restrict voting gain traction in Republican states
 * USA Today: Democrats and Republicans are battling over voting rights in Congress and at statehouses. Which side will win?
 * Los Angeles Times: As the For the People Act voting bill is debated, Republicans in dozens of states push restrictions
 * CNN: Major conservative groups unify behind state GOP efforts to restrict voting, At least 45 states have seen bills aimed at voter suppression. Here's why
 * Vox: State GOPs have already introduced dozens of bills restricting voting access in 2021
 * Berkeley: Stacking the deck: How the GOP works to suppress minority voting
 * ACLU: Block the Vote: How Politicians are Trying to Block Voters from the Ballot Box
 * You appear to be confusing opinion writing for news reporting in many of these cases. Also, news is OK for reporting events that occurred, but it's not great for what is better covered through academic sources.  -- Jayron 32 13:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * None of those sources are opinion pieces and I could provide just as many academic sources. –– FormalDude  (talk)  13:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * On the first half of your sentence, I picked one at random, This is not a news article, it is a "perspective" piece That's not a reliable source for anything except the directly attributed opinion of the author themselves.  Secondly, please do so.  Newspapers are not a great source for political science related topics.  Academia would be.  -- Jayron 32 15:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's labeled a perspective because it's from an outside writer rather than someone on WashPo staff. The author, Robert Griffin, is a political scientist and research director of the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group which means they are a subject matter expert and this can safely be considered a reliable source. –– FormalDude  (talk)  22:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Per News organizations, both "analysis and opinion pieces" are rarely reliable unless written by an expert. Quality news media are reliable for current events not political science. You have to show btw that Griffin qualifies as an expert. His background appears to be thinktanks, including the highly partisan Center for American Progress. I think btw that your summary is correct, but needs to be properly sourced and phrased in a neutral tone. That probably means expanding the section to explain Republican strategy, including putting it into the context of U.S. politics. TFD (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He looks to have expertise, although he indeed comes from left-leaning think tanks, but he was a lecturer at George Washington University. However many of the sources in FormalDude's list above appear to be reasonable enough. Andre🚐 03:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed sources
Here's peer-reviewed sources, even though the current sources used for this portion are all news media. –– FormalDude  (talk)  22:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * TRUMPED: Intentional Voter Suppression in the Wake of the 2020 Election. Mercer Law Review.
 * Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes. The Journal of Politics.
 * Why the Sky Didn't Fall: Mobilizing Anger in Reaction to Voter ID Laws. Political Psychology.
 * Who Votes Without Identification? Using Individual‐Level Administrative Data to Measure the Burden of Strict Voter Identification Laws. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.
 * Challenging the Challengers: How Partisan Citizen Observers Contribute to Disenfranchisement and Undermine Election Integrity. Vanderbilt Law Review.


 * Have you tried to find sources that don't support that this is voter suppression? This is kind of a general problem with political opinions is finding sources that do support a view then assuming we have represented the range of views on a subject. Springee (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * These are the most relevant sources I could find on the topic of Republican's recent legislative attempts to enhance election security and restrict voting. If you can find an academic source that analyzes this topic and does not refer to it as voter suppression and disenfranchisement, be my guest. I could not. –– FormalDude  (talk)  02:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To say that something is an effect of a policy position is not the same as saying that it is a policy position, however. Republicans support legal gun ownership with minimal regulation; however that doesn't mean that "more mass murders" is a Republican policy position.  They don't support mass murder even though scholarly studies clearly show that the effect of lower gun regulations is higher rates of mass murders.  It would be wrong to say they support mass murder.  Similarly, even though Republican policy has the effect of suppressing voting by qualified individuals (i.e. it reduces voting by people who have the unambiguous legal right to do so), that is not a policy position of the Republican party.  It is merely an effect of that.  Just as saying that Republicans support mass murder is not a reasonable thing to say, neither is saying the support voter suppression or restriction or other such emotional language.  That is appropriate for the campaign trail, not for an encyclopedia article.  -- Jayron 32 21:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely correct. It would be like saying "progressive Democrats support taking people off healthcare plans they like" because they support single-payer healthcare. It's technically true, but that's not the goal or the intended policy. Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 23:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hard disagree. I’ve been following this issue for decades. Voter suppression is a policy position of the Republican Party, and the claim that it is only an effect of their positions is false.  This discussion is absurd. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s a nice argument senator, why don’t you back it up with a source? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 00:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Tova Wang, The Politics of Voter Suppression: Defending and Expanding Americans' Right to Vote, Cornell University Press, 2012. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A book written by a rando for The Century Foundation, a progressive think tank that might not even be notable enough for a page here. Cool. Of course a progressive lobbying group is going to argue Republicans are evil - and of course she's also a 2004 election conspiracy theorist. Be serious. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 03:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we need an additional proposal at this point to change the lead: "The Republican Party is a far right, anti-democratic, authoritarian, pro-Russia political party that believes that one person, one vote should be repealed by a constitutional amendment. They receive much of their funding from the Koch Network, a collection of American oligarchs in the oil, gas, armaments, and industrial sectors who believe that corporations, not individual citizens, should direct the political future of the United States. They wish to rebuild and remake America in the image of authoritarian regimes like Hungary and the Russian Federation.  Their primary political positions for achieving these stated goals involves anti-democratic behavior and policymaking that opposes labor unions, Social Security, supporting voter suppression and privatization, and placing impenetrable barriers to popular and social democracy." Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all night. Sounds like you might be a better fit at RationalWiki. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 03:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It was meant as a joke, just like your previous ad hominem. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Joking apart, I think the Ideology section should be amended forthwith to reflect the far-right segments of the Republican Party. 2402:D000:811C:AA94:F5EE:9219:1B94:1E55 (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't about the effect of a policy position, it is about the policy position itself. These sources describe how Republicans masquerade legislation that disenfranchises voters behind the guise of "election security" and "fraud prevention". –– FormalDude  (talk)  01:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is about the policy position itself, show me writings endorsed by the party that contain the information stating it as a policy position. Your assertion that the Republican party uses the phrasing or the concept of "voter suppression" as a policy position is not backed up by any sources that say that.  Show me what the Republican policy positions are, not what others say about them.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're suggesting we have to take the Republicans at their word for what their policy positions are? Obviously that is not the case, we follow what the WP:BESTSOURCES say. –– FormalDude  (talk)  19:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that there is are two different things: There is the policy positions themselves and there are the effects of those policy positions.  When we say "Republicans support X" then we need to be clear and use their own words.  We can also then say "According to X, the effect of the Republican policy X is Y".  What you are trying to say is "Republicans support Y", which is not a true statement.  In the terms of this topic here, the correct way to handle this is "Republicans support greater regulation of the voting process, including voter ID laws and regular purges of the voter roles, as well as rolling back expansions of voting availability such as universal absentee ballots and early voting times.  According to XXXX, the effect of these policies is to suppress voter turnout, even among eligible voters."  See, that is what the sources say in these cases; we need to separate, in the article, what the Republicans say, and use their words when describing things we are putting in their voice and then use analysts words only when describing what analysts say.  That's what I have been, am, and always will be saying.  Accuracy demands that we are clear with who is saying what.  We are not accepting anything, we are being accurate in reporting what people say, and not ascribing to them words they are not saying.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "we need to use [Republican] words when describing things we are putting in their voice and then use analysts words only when describing what analysts say."
 * So then,, please explain why you oppose my edit changing "Opponents argue" to "Political analysis suggests" for a sentence that is explicitly about what analysts say. –– FormalDude  (talk)  13:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I did nothing of the sort. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess I assumed you were participating in the discussion because you had an opinion about its dispute... –– FormalDude  (talk)  15:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "How The Republican Push To Restrict Voting Could Affect Our Elections" via FiveThirtyEight:
 * –– FormalDude  (talk)  19:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is purging ineligible or inactive voters voter suppression, or routine maintenance? Is reducing the amount of days of early voting (increased during a pandemic emergency) voter suppression? The answers aren't entirely straightforward. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * According to who? You? Reliable sources make it extremely straightforward. –– FormalDude  (talk)  19:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A judge just slapped down all the VRA complaints about voter purges, so start there. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Source? SCOTUS has been killing the VRA softly for decades anyways, so that's not really applicable. –– FormalDude  (talk)  19:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Leave the partisan talking points out of this. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you fucking quit it with the ad hominems? That's not a partisan talking point, it's a fact. –– FormalDude  (talk)  20:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll quit calling out blatant partisan talking points when you stop using them. An example: you just posted an opinion piece from the spokesman for a left-wing advocacy group and declared it to be "fact". It is not, in fact, a fact. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 22:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it's a news piece–not an opinion. Secondly, this is obviously the case if you had read the lead section of Voting Rights Act of 1965. And third, this fact is widely reported by reliable sources like the NYT and 538.
 * Your hasty dismissal of any source that you don't personally agree with is becoming quite insufferable. –– FormalDude  (talk)  22:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am going to hastily dismiss your "facts" because they aren't that. Bite me. Take your partisan talking points to RationalWiki or somewhere else where they will be respected. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>


 * At the very least, we should improve the sourcing in the article (and remove the note, which is plainly WP:SYNTH in that it seems to be trying to argue with the rest of the sentence using sources that don't really discuss it.) With the improved sourcing I don't think it's proper to summarize this perspective as one only held by "opponents", since it creates a WP:DUE issue by giving undue weight to the opinions of politicians and talking heads by weighing them equal to academics.  Some people above have suggested that there might be high-quality academic sources arguing that these restrictions are not intended as voter suppression, not intended to benefit Republicans, and / or won't have disproportionate racial impact; but we'd actually need those sources in the article to weigh them equally in the current "supporters / opponents" framing.  Without that, the current  "supporters / opponents" wording is clearly not at all WP:NPOV because it is giving undue weight to the views of non-experts by weighing them equally to experts. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your change of sourcing is an improvement and thank you for it. I do think we have to be careful about stating a consensus effect vs stating motive.  Studies have concluded these changes do reduce voting in minority/low income/etc demographics.  However, it's opponents to claim the motives are vote suppression vs election integrity. Springee (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any source that verifies problems with "election integrity" that would be remedied by "these changes"? And these problems suddenly arose across the US, while virtually every recount, investigation, court challenge and other due process failed to find such problems? I am asking you to document your assertion, not questioning your motive in stating it.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking to stated motives, not impacts. The problem with many of these discussions is much of the data is sparse or hard to come by.  Also, efforts to limit things like mail in/drop off voting are relatively new.  Only very recently have we seen such a huge shift to remote voting vs in person voting.  As an example, a key part of voting is the idea of a secret ballot.  In person voting basically ensures privacy in a person's voting choices.  That isn't ensured in the case of mail in/drop off voting.  So people are left with a trade off.  We can have more voter participation with remote voting but the voting process loses control of the ballot in the process.  How big is the issue?  That's hard to say.  Presumably we can signature match but how robust is such a system?  Next, assume the person filling out the ballot is the owner of the ballot.  How do you know if the vote was cast free and clear vs with someone suggesting/intimidating/enticing them to vote a certain way and verifying that they mark the correct spots?  How do you prevent ballot harvesting in places where it's not legal?  I think we can all assume that in the case of a national election the number of instances is more than zero.  But how much more and how would you prove it?  Anyway, we have to be careful when accepting claims that these actions are done specifically to suppress opposition votes vs to close holes in the system even though the size of the holes is not clear. Springee (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A quick websearch found this site discussing harvesting . I haven't read through it so please forgive me if it turns out to be partisan crap.  Also, I am not suggesting this as a RS for article level content.  I don't know enough about the site. Springee (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you are answering "no". We need to work from RS such as those provided above rather than go from casual impressions that have no basis in mainstream documentation.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we have RS that states with evidence that the GOP's motives are voter suppression vs election integrity? If not, we need to be IMPARTIAL.  We can say "NYT says the intent is X" but we can't say "GOP's intent is X".  Also, a claim that "every court" etc found against the GOP is something that would also need to be supported.  If some of these laws have survived court challenges that would undermine such a claim. Springee (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to WP:READ any of the numerous sources provided above I suggest you stop participating in this discussion. –– FormalDude  (talk)  13:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No FormalDude, progressive think tanks do not county as reputable reliable sources and arbiters of fact. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you continue to make false claims about sources without any evidence it's not going to end well, Toa Nidhiki05. –– FormalDude  (talk)  14:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I'm so scared! What are you going to do? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Which sources say the GOP's intent and what evidence do they provide (vs offering their opinion) Springee (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Intentional Voter Suppression in the Wake of the 2020 Election." via Mercer Law Review provides an in-depth study of the GOP's intent and states: –– FormalDude   (talk)  14:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Judging off of the author's unprofessional remarks ("First and foremost, I would like to thank God for this opportunity and the honor of being published in The Mercer Law Review! I would also like to thank my beautiful wife Lauren Watts for her unending love and support, as well as my parents Heidi and Don Watts, and brothers Dmitri Mitchell and Zachary Watts. Finally, I would like to thank (former Dean of Mercer Law, now President of Georgia College and State University) Cathy Cox for serving as my faculty advisor for this comment and my high school English teachers Jamie Hofford and Janice Stalder for giving me an outstanding writing foundation.") and the "journal" itself ("The Mercer Law Review, the oldest continually published law review in Georgia, is edited and published by students of Mercer University School of Law. There are five issues each year including an Annual Survey of Georgia Law, an Annual Eleventh Circuit Survey, and an online companion highlighting student scholarship"), this is very clearly a college student writing in what amounts to a student newspaper. There's no indication this author is remotely reliable or notable in any way - in fact, I can't find any information about the author at all. Like the rest of your sources - which all predictably make the same hyperbolic, hyperpartisan claims - this is very clearly a glorified partisan opinion piece from a non-expert. I expect nothing less from you at this point, honestly. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's hilarious how you'll just make shit up about sources you don't like. Mercer Law Review is a highly reliable peer-reviewed academic journal that is used hundreds of times in citations on Wikipedia already. –– FormalDude  (talk)  15:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's clearly no use arguing with a brick wall, so I'm not even going to bother at this point. Your sources are terrible and insufficient to back up your inflammatory, hyperpartisan claims. Simply yelling hyperpartisan talking points over and over isn't arguing and won't establish consensus. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Your sources are terrible and insufficient" you say after looking over one out of dozens and dismissing it as a student newspapers when in actuality it's a peer reviewed journal. I guess you have to resort to red herrings when you don't have any legitimate counterarguments. –– FormalDude  (talk)  15:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Mercer Law Journal is, in fact, a student journal run and edited by students. The article you cited is effectively an opinion piece from a school paper. But given how utterly divorced from reality your argumentation has been, this doesn't surprise me. I'll once again advise you to head to RationalWiki, where your hyperpartisan arguments and information will be accepted readily with open arms. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just utterly ridiculous. I suppose you discount the Harvard Law Review for the same reason? –– FormalDude  (talk)  15:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't regard any and all contributors to the Harvard Law Review as undisputed subject-area experts, no, nor would I regard it as an unambiguous outlet declaring only facts. However, articles by individual contributors are certainly reliable for their opinions, and obviously articles by professors and judges and whatnot (ie. people with credentials) would be very reliable in general. But since you seemed so convinced, I invite you to establish that Wesley N. Watts is a reputed subject area expert on election law. Go ahead - I'll give you all the time you need! <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have to be a subject-matter expert because it's not a SPS, it's an established reputable peer-reviewed journal, and I'm sure it would pass an RfC at WP:RSN. –– FormalDude  (talk)  15:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a "no, I can't establish Wesley N. Watts as a subject area expert". <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Show me the policy that says a source's author must be a subject-matter expert in order for it to be considered reliable. Go ahead - I'll give you all the time you need! –– FormalDude  (talk)  16:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, law reviews are reliable sources for information about laws and legal issues, which overlaps a lot with policy. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 02:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think most of the sources above look pretty good but how about a few of the book sources I've added below. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 03:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Book sources
Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 02:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure where to add these sources:
 * San Diego Union-Tribune article on USCD analysis of voter laws.
 * USCD analysis.
 * Washington Post article on new voting restrictions in 2016. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Revert with misleading edit summary
you reverted some edits with the misleading edit summary that you were expanding the body per my edit. Why did you revert, and why the misleading edit summary? For other readers of this page: I had edited the lead earlier (here, here, here, and here); my summaries explain my reasons. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Whitemen and men are Republican demographic?
Where did that fact come from? Sounds like a talking point from someone that wants to dissuade people from being Republican. 98.97.38.227 (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Correct title should be GOP, not "Republican Party"?
Isn't the actual registered name of the party, & in fact all letterhead & associated domain names, etc, "Grand Old Party" or "GOP"?

Aside from any questions of whether their members are or are not "republican" in ideology,  the actual name just isn't '''"Republican", is it? ' I don't think a common error in terminology should be the default page title, no matter how common it is; rather, shouldn't "Republican Party" get redirected to this page about the "Grand Old Party", because that's what it's actually named?''

It seems confusing & misinformative, for the page title to be a misappellation, rather than bearing the official name? ProphetZarquon (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You have it backwards, "Republican Party" is the official name, "GOP" is an appellation. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2022
Hi, I would like to inform you that the website sited:www.gop.com doesen't actually work,if you click it redirects to a website that displays a message saying:"The requested URL was rejected. Access Forbidden" in my informed search the website has been changed from gop.com to gop.gov. TheDeadResearcher (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not an edit request. Link worked for me. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * GOP.gov is the website of the House Republicans. –– FormalDude  (talk)  15:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

this ain't your daddy's Republican party
do we need a new article about the Republican party that has arisen in the Trump era, so as to distinguish it from, say, the party of Lincoln, or of Reagan? The rapid transformation of recent years is quite stark relative to distant or even recent history. soibangla (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The party is still the same party, it is not a new party and its views have mostly stayed the same. Certain issues have shifted views, such as going from more free trade to more protectionist, but overall there hasn't been a "stark shift" necessitating any new article compared to what has happened in the past 150 years. I don't understand where this is coming from considering the party had completely different views on numerous issues in the 1800s and 1900s compared to before Trump, he has not changed more than the entire history of the party. Bill Williams 07:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure. We do not (for example) have a separate article for when the Reagan/Goldwater wing took over from the Rockefeller wing. Then again, we do have a article for the '94 revolution. I guess if there is enough RS describing the Trump Era as such....maybe so?Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Rocky never made it. He tried and tried. R's were way to his right at that time.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't agree. But this is NOTFORUM.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't agree with what? The Rocky Republicans never controlled the party. Reagan/Goldwater did not take over the party from the Rocky Wing. That's not opinion that is historical fact.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What part of WP:NOTFORUM do you not get here? The OP was asking if a Trump Era separate article is warranted. Whomever you think controlled the GOP at whatever point isn't really relevant.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your rudeness undermines whatever you are trying to say here. You asserted that Rocky at one time controlled the party and that Reagan/Goldwater took it over from Rocky. I stated that this is not what happened, that Rock never was top dog in the party and was always marginal in the national party.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty funny you complaining about someone being rude. (Pot meet kettle.) In any case, whomever you think controlled the GOP (at whatever point).....I think it's a safe bet to say (for example) Gerald Ford couldn't win the GOP nomination at this point. The point being here that obviously there have been shifts in the GOP (in terms of controlling ideology). Some with wiki articles and some without. So, to the OPs point, if there is sufficient RS covering the Trump era as such....it's probably wort adding. So, would you like to stay on this tangent and keep violating NOTFORUM....or would you like to stay on point (for once)?Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, its the same party even if some of the views have shifted. The party of Reagan isnt the party of Teddy Roosevelt either. But its still the same party. Things evolve, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When someone else comes to lead the Republican Party, someone will ask for a new article because it isn't the same party as Lincoln, Reagan or Trump (or Teddy Roosevelt for that matter). People said the same thing about Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush. The reality is that political parties change with the times or die. TFD (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So when the party supports an armed mob come to the Capitol to murder public officials and overthrow the govererment in preparation for its leader to declare martial law, that's just a little tweak around the edges? That's the same as Nixon, Reagan etc. jitterbugging a bit left or right? Like Reagan dispached a mob that wanted to hang the mayor but not the veep? That's not what the mainstream narrative of RS says.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What, exactly, does that have to with the question as to whether this is the same party as the past? I know Im new in the AP2 world, but I thought WP:NOTFORUM was well understood by all. We arent here to discuss our feelings or have arguments with one another for shits and giggles. As to the question, this is clearly a continuation of the same party, and parties invariably shift over time. It may be a distinct phase in its history, but it is still a part of that history. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That was not a personal opinion. That was a question as to whether the party I described -- which reflects the RS description of the current national republican party -- should share a WP page with the party of the 19th and 20th and early 21st centuries. That is the question OP posed. Do you have reasing to support your assertion? That would be helpful. What is your response to my question above? What supports your assertion it is a "shift" and not a transformation into something completely different. We don't have a single WP page for caterpillar and butterfly.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources, any at all, that supports the idea that this current manifestation of the Republican party is not the GOP? You want RS saying that the Republican Party is the Republican Party? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should share the page, as they're the same party. Political parties change in their politics over decades all the time - we don't create new articles for each of them. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 13:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There's only one Republican party, just like there's only one Democratic party. We wouldn't (shouldn't) split either of them. In the case of the Democrats? one could recommend a page for progressive Democrats & a page for centrist Democrats. But best that we don't. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is equivocation.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently we disagree. Anyways, I oppose creating a second Republican Party page. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We have pages like Tea Party movement & Justice Democrats, which should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * We definetely need to expand our coverage of how the Republican party has changed in the Trump era. There's no mention of the divide in the GOP by Republicans who opposed Trump's 2016 presidential campaign which lead to the Never Trump movement. There's no context on how people who used to be the key top republicans like Cheney and Romney were chastised and either forced out or now take a back a seat to the new far-right republicans like Boebert and MTG. Not sure if this information should be added here or at a new article though. –– FormalDude  (talk)  21:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Both major parties evolve with the times. The one constant (at least in the last roughly 50 years), is they both quickly work together, when their status is threatened by a third political party. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity which Cheney are you referring to? Grahaml35 (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Liz, she was the one forced out. –– FormalDude  (talk)  03:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would strongly disagree that Liz Cheney was ever a "key top republican". She had a disastrous 2014 Senate bid where she withdrew before the primaries. Cheney has a very popular name because of her father but that is like saying Jeb Bush was a key top republican. However, Romney in the early 2010s was seen as a top Republican. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , ask your father and grandfather what Dems said about Republican presidents then. They were worried that Nixon, who already had a long history of suppressing free speech, would order the army to keep him in office if he was impeached (so did the Secretary of Defense btw), Reagan, who believed we were in the end times, was going to start a nuclear war, Bush started a war based on lies, leading to millions of deaths and brought in the fascist Patriot Act. Now they are all statesmen and Trump will join them once the Republicans choose a new leader. Gingrich was blamed for removing civility from Congress.
 * I suggest you read our page about Jan 6 before making any further comparisons.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 04:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your page? Do you have an ownership stake in Wiki? Grahaml35 (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Political parties change with the times. Republican tried a conservative presidential nominee in 1964 & it backfired, so they went back to moderate presidential nominees in 1968, 1972 & just barely in 1976. After losing with a moderate (who was forced to have a conservative running mate) in 1976, the conservatives took over for good in 1980. Democrats last ran a liberal presidential nominee in 1988 & lost. Beginning in 1992, they've been running moderate or centrist nominees. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting silly. The Republican National Committee, founded in 1856, remains the organization that runs the national apparatus of the Republican Party. It has done so since its inception and continues to do so today, with a continuous structure. And beyond that, sources put Trump within the history of the Republican party all the time. Here is the NYT talking about how Trump took over the party. Not created some separate party, but co-opted the existing party. The GOP remains the GOP, regardless of whatever motive somebody has to claim that it somehow is not. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * With the differences being as stark as they are it's not a bad idea to discuss the merits of a new article about the modern Republican Party. FormalDude   (talk)  01:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Missing party organization/structure
Maybe I missed it, but it appears this article is missing a section on how the Republican Party is organized. What are the different levels of organization (Republican National Convention, Republican National Committee and the state party affiliates such as the South Carolina Republican Party for example) and how do they relate to and work with each other. Who are the leaders of the party organizations, how are they chosen, and how do they attempt to win elections and set party platforms and agendas? Ltwin (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's some good information... We may need to pare down some other sections to fit in it, but it seems that such information is arguably more important than some of the stuff that is already here. I'm leary to simply tack on a new section to an already bloated article, but your proposal has merit.  Maybe you could mock up your planned additions and put them here on the talk page, and we can look to see how we can fit it in.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)