Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 22

RFC: Should Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election be linked in the Voting Rights subsection?
Question: Should the Republican Party (United States) subsection include a hyperlink "See also" link to Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election? Toa Nidhiki05 23:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Tagging discussion participants:, , , , , , , , , , ,

Options
Option 1: Yes, a link should be included in the "See also" header

Option 2: No, a link should not be included in the "See also" header

Option 3: No, but a link should be included in the subsection itself as part of content


 * Note: Option 3 represents the default, stable article state with an inline link in the section text. Springee (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Survey
Option 3 - This should not be included in the "See also" section. It's inflammatory, pointy, likely fails WP:RECENTISM and the 10 year test, as such efforts are limited to state Republican Parties and their elected officials - none of which the national GOP directly controls. Simply put - it's not entirely relevant to the national party itself, at least as much as voter ID laws. However, these efforts are noteworthy on a practical level and should be included in prose in the section itself, which would naturally include a link. Toa Nidhiki05 23:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural close. This RfC is an attempt to WP:CIRCUMVENT consensus. A majority of editors have reached a conclusion on this dispute through the discussion directly above. When a group of editors is claiming a consensus, and yet we still find ourselves at an impasse, it is almost always either because participants cannot find rational grounds to settle the dispute, or because one of the sides become emotionally and/or ideologically invested in winning the argument. I think it's abundantly clear to anyone familiar with this dispute that the latter has happened to Toa. This should be procedurally closed. –– FormalDude  (talk)  23:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll reply to the RfC later, that said, it is totally reasonable to open a RfC here. It was suggested above and if the result is the same as the local consensus, great.  If it isn't then it would show that the local consensus was just that. Springee (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Im sorry but thats absurd. An RFC is to attract wider participation than the group of editors involved in the discussion. And it is an abuse of process to attempt to shut that down. Make your argument or dont, but an RFC is part of WP:DR and you cant just shut it down cus you think you won the prior discussion. A user is always free to get wider input, so long as they accept the result that comes.  nableezy  - 00:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Chiming in to say that of course I'd accept the outcome here. While I disagree with adding it, my primary reason for reverting has been that there is no consensus to add it and we don't jam contested content in like that. Getting consensus here resolves the issue. Toa Nidhiki05 01:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not an abuse of process to make a good-faith, justified recommendation of a procedural close. The previous discussion should have been allowed to reach a natural close. WP:Settle the process first. Editors were in the middle of debating if we should even have an RfC when this was started, which prevented any potential drafting of the RfC as required by WP:RFCBEFORE. –– FormalDude  (talk)  01:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You do not need a consensus to start an RFC, just get on with making your argument instead of trying to shut it down.  nableezy  - 01:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to shut it down, I was trying to make sure it follows RfC guidelines. –– FormalDude  (talk)  02:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Options 2 and 3 are misleading. There are only two options, 1 and 2, add or don't add. The in-line Wikilink is in the section now and would be removed if and when option 1 finds a consensus. And this RfC should have been about adding the link to Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States or both pages (see my comment in the discussion below). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Striking my !vote above because although I believe this already had a preliminary consensus, I support Option 1 as these articles are clearly directly related, as has been proved in the discussion preceding this one. However, I maintain that this RfC is flawed as it should also be considering a link to because that was the original proposal. –– FormalDude   (talk)  06:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * LOL ... so do we also then need a second RfC to debate about and decide upon inclusion of the link to Voter suppression in the United States ?? Actual question. :) 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Options 2 - is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 or 3 Option 1 potentially fails the WP:10YEARTEST depending on what the scope of the Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election is (will there be a Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2028 presidential election article if they win the 2024 election, but lose the 2028 one?). It's better to have that link be a part of the section content and explained in prose instead. I'd support linking to an article titled Republican Party and voting rights in the United States in the "See also" header, though, if such an article exists. Some1 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC) clarified and expanded, Some1 (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election won't exist in ten years? What about Voter suppression in the United States? –– FormalDude  (talk)  00:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've clarified my !vote. Some1 (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - and honestly it should be as that is undoubtedly the article we have on the topic covered in the section. Your problem is with the title of that article, not over its inclusion here. But that link is clearly the article that covers the topic of this section in further depth, so it should be linked to as a  or . If you feel that title is inappropriate then try to change that title based on our polices for article names. But that isnt relevant to whether or not it should be listed at the start of the section on the same topic here.  nableezy  - 01:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also Id like to add a few things. First, I think the target article should be expanded to be more encompassing and retitled to something like Republican policies on voter rights. That is what you should be concentrating on, making the target article NPOV in all aspects, including its scope and title. But regardless, the section, if there is an expansion article related to it elsewhere, should have see and or main links.  nableezy  - 04:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This right here! Yes, agreed that the sentiment against linking to an article based on the title is misplaced energy, and that the focus should be on changing the target article title, as has stated above. Those who want the link to appear with a more NPOV title should be working on that part, not trying to omit inclusion of the link here in this article. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2 or 3. Not 1. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per Nableezy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not sure which option I would go with, the see also link appears to be related to the section but I am not convinced, yet, and would probably go with working it into the section in prose. I just removed the link since this seems to be quite contested in the section above above and there is a RFC about it now. How long ago was the linked added? It seems like it just happened so BRD happened? --Malerooster (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been ongoing for about a week. The actual addition was earlier today, though. It seems like there was consensus to add it, maybe (?) but this RfC is intended to clarify the matter. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 02:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I painfully read through the thread above and it seemed quite disputed/heated, no clear cut, absolute consensus. Then multiple editors removed it and it was added back and forth? --Malerooster (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a very solid summary of the situation, yes. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 02:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A better summary would include that Toa has made a total of 10 reverts to this article since the edit that started this dispute was made. And that three of their reverts to the article were in a span of less than 24 hours. –– FormalDude  (talk)  02:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * FormalDude, i certainly don't support edit warring over this and didn't see that, but noted. It seems like when multiple editors revert something, that means they do not support its inclusion, whether they comment on the talk page or not (but they should). --Malerooster (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Malerooster and User:98.155.8.5, from the comments by Toa, you would never know some important background. Toa has edit warred at Republican Party (United States) by repeatedly removing a wikilink to the article discussed above, and multiple experienced editors have been restoring that link. When multiple editors opposed the same deletion, Toa should have realized they were in the wrong. Toa's edit warring was so bad they were brought to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and thoroughly chastised, resulting in a partial block for edit warring by deleting the exact same wikilink Malerooster now deleted. That was not a wise move, but you didn't know, so I suggest you self-delete and restore it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and yeah I read the entire conversation above and also the whole arbitration thread. I am not surprised was warned and partially blocked, but I am surprised that  would insist on reverting these changes, due to what seems like a pretty decent local consensus for the wikilink inclusion.
 * That's why we've got this RfC going now, eh? One little wikilink, who woulda thought it would be so contentious for some, or so hard to swallow the facts that such common and prevalent modern-day voter suppression practices are actually happening here and now in the United States, heh. I obviously think it's important to let our readers learn about this stuff, rather than trying to hide away the truth of the matter or conceal the reality of the situation by intentional omission of a link to that information. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * On the side - I'd like to note that FormalDude introduced this text and has reverted it in four times, and that not all of my reverts were about this (one I self-reverted, another was about page vandalism, etc). But the core issue here isn't an edit war, it's resolving this long discussion. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 02:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Toa and Springee were the only ones repeatedly reverting this, while five others (not counting myself) restored it in light of the apparent consensus. –– FormalDude  (talk)  02:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * only reverted twice. That's half as much as you. You should retract this statement - making false claims about other users isn't fair to them. The brunt of reverts were done by me. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 02:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * FormalDude, I considered reverting your addition. But figured an RFC would be the best route, to solving this content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1 it certainly seems like an informative link to further information and not "inflammatory." It's perfectly neutral and factual to describe the voter suppression actions taken by the Republican Party and to link to further information on the topic. 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%);">🚐 02:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not include and link it in the subsection then? --Malerooster (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WT actual F! The link is already in the subsection.! I was going to add it but its already there. So just to be clear, there is already a link to this article but we want to bring it to the top of the section as a See also link? I am I the only one who didn't know that? I feel stupid. --Malerooster (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1 relevant external article, informative link. If such an article exists and is compliant with Wikipedia policy it cannot be inflammatory unless factual reporting is inflammatory, so any objections along this line are, in my view, politically motivated (should clarify I'm not implying editors are exhibiting political bias, but that they are concerning themselves with political sensitivities. It isn't Wikipedia's fault if this is a controversial topic or if aspects of it are denied by Republicans, it is only our responsibility to report what is said in reliable sources and provide the most informative articles we can for our readers). The 10YEARTEST objection seems like the strongest to me, but if even in 2032 this could conceivably still be an important and influential moment in Republican history. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 03:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC), expanded 03:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC), expanded 03:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not the case that the existence of an external article means it is always IMPARTIAL or NEUTRAL to point it out in a specific location. For example, putting the link in the second sentence of the lead would certainly not be DUE.  Lat's suppose we have a BLP of a former Duke Lacrosse player (no idea if we actually do).  Adding a "primary article [rape]" in the section about their college days would certainly be inflammatory even if they were a member of the team accused of rape. Springee (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stay on topic. Linking to related content, as in the case we are discussing here about voting rights and restrictions, has little to do with shifting the neutrality of the section, and everything to do with linking to related content that is well-sourced and factual. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My comments are on topic. Since the link is already in the text what is the issue?  Also, have you previously had a named user account?  Cheers. Springee (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the issue indeed? Why not add the link at the top of the section so it's easier to find for casual readers?
 * And no, I have never been a registered user here. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 2 or 3 First, the post 2020 voting laws are not the only time voting and election content has been discussed.  Unless this section is meant to only discuss that time frame then it seems wrong to present that link at the top of the section.  It's also an issue of impartial tone.  Including such a link at the top of the section which no context around it is an issue since it implies in wiki-voice an opinion about the GOP intent.  The see also is already linked in the section body so removal from the header doesn't remove the link from the article as a whole.  Springee (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1 – Strong support for inclusion, based on and in agreement with 's reasoning above, that the link in question should actually be for the content at hand regarding voting rights and restrictions. The Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election article is well sourced and in-depth; I don't see why anyone would want to deprive our readers from having access to that information by removing or opposing the link to it.
 * Further, I feel there was already local consensus generated here for inclusion, but see that some users insist on continuing to edit-war, reverting addition of the wikilink, mostly based on political preferences and obstructionist WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT attitudes, which are not valid reasons for overriding local consensus or making contributions here more broadly. This behaviour is destructive to our collective efforts at maintaining a quality encyclopedic knowledge-base that is factually backed up with reliable sources, and I would like to implore the editors who are against inclusion of a relevant link to related content to please do some soul searching and kindly drop the shenanigans. Absurd in my opinion that this is coming down to an RfC, but here we are. Thank you all. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See my comment above at 05:52. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1. I was skeptical at first as to whether we really have reliable nonpartisan sources to back up the idea that it's a fact rather than an opinion that voter suppression is central to the Republican party's political positioning. However, I've been persuaded by the sources that we do. In particular this report from a group of nonpartisan pro-democracy groups, and this analysis by an elections expert at the rigorously nonpartisan website Fivethirtyeight. As to whether that adds up to a (or a  ), I haven't seen a lot of P&G guidance that would really be determinative here. In the absence of specific P&G guidance, we fall back on the collective intuitions of the community about what's appropriate. In this case, given the clear centrality of voter suppression to recent Republican political strategy –– in a way and to a degree that experts note is especially remarkable –– I think the average reader is going to be best served by having this link foregrounded in the header. Generalrelative (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This survey from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center is also highly informative on the differing attitudes toward voting rights among Republican- and Democratic-identifying populations. Generalrelative (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1. There is a separate article on the topic covered in the entire section. A, possibly , link instead on the inline link buried in the fourth paragraph is appropriate. The proposer says that actions of state organizations of the Republican Party are not entirely relevant to the national party, at least as much as voter ID laws. They’re wrong about both clauses of that sentence. Voting restrictions are not limited to voter ID laws.  Other methods (the following is not an exclusive list) include reducing the number of polling stations (how many people are able/can afford to take Tuesday off to stand in line for hours at their polling station or even travel to their polling station), adding obstacles to registering to vote,  purging voter rolls (you moved three doors down the street and the postcard asking you to confirm your continued residence in the district didn’t reach you, or you hadn’t voted in the last few elections), restricting early voting. Voting restrictions are relevant to the Republican Party on the local (municipal, county), the state, and the national level because all three form the party (see CliffsNotes, sigh).  Our current text in the first sentence ("Republicans, mainly at the state level, argue") is pure white-washing of the party when the efforts are nationwide and mostly successful in states where Republicans control the legislation and/or executive. The first sentence of the fourth paragraph correctly says that Republicans launched a nationwide effort to impose tighter election laws at the state level. When the vast majority of reliable sources say that the Republican Party is undertaking these efforts, then we do, too. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 a blue link as part of the normal prose is fine, doesn't need the extra emphasis, especially since most Wikipedia guidance notes that See Also links are unnecessary if there are already blue links in the normal prose. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 or 3, or procedurally close the RM. The type of agenda pushing that we shouldn't be seeing on a neutral third party encyclopedia.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 (as per ). I think anyone opposing needs to read the section, which currently contains lines like In defending their restrictions to voting rights, Republicans have made false and exaggerated claims about the extent of voter fraud in the United States; all existing research indicates that it is extremely rare, and civil and voting rights organizations often accuse Republicans of enacting restrictions to influence elections in the party's favor. It's pretty clearly just true to say that the article about Republican efforts to restrict voting is the main article of this subsection. Loki (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per nableezy, Generalrelative and Space4Time3.  starship .paint  (exalt) 07:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1; based on coverage from the past two years, it's a major aspect of the section's topic and linking to the dedicated article seems difficult to avoid. --Aquillion (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 per Jayron, or 2. - w o lf  01:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 or 3 per Jayron, Toa, and Springee. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 the link in the prose of the article gets the job done without us yelling at the reader (which is what "see also" links usually do, imo). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 per Springee. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
Option 3 already exists, not sure if that matters or not, but I just saw that. --Malerooster (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, even before the expansion of the section around 20 Oct the link was already in the text[]. Basically Option 3 is the default/stable version. Springee (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Republicans launch[ing]a nationwide effort to impose tighter election laws at the state level undermines the argument that it's an effort limited to state Republican Parties and their elected officials, no? Marching in lockstep but with different destinations? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Why is this RfC about the See also link I added here to Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election? My edit was reverted by the proposer four minutes later] (after speed-reading the linked page?) with the usual "This is just a continuation of the inflammatory dispute" comment + "take to Talk page". The Talk page discussion was about the earlier "See also" link to Voter suppression in the United States. Only the last 3 edits, starting with this one, were about the restrictions following the 2020 election (the proposer didn't respond); it would have been better if I had placed my edits in a new section (20/20 hindsight).  Both pages are relevant to the Voting rights section since Republican efforts to restrict voting access began years before the 2020 election. An RfC is needed that includes both Wikilinks. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just expand the RFC (with more options) & ping back those who've already participated. Not a very big adjustment. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, option 3 needs to be removed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You'll have to discuss it with the RFC opener, I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does option 3 need to be removed? It would be better to make it clear that option 3 represents the current text.  Some of the option 1 comments might change to 3 if they are aware that the link already exists in line.  Springee (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a note to option 3 so people finding this RfC will know the link was already part of the text of the article. Springee (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that the link is already buried in the fourth paragraph of the text, but believe it would be more clearly obvious/visible, and more immediately available as a link at the top of the section (especially useful and easier to find for casual readers, or folks skimming through the article etc). Definitely not changing my Option 1 vote preference. :) Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the opening pings didn't work, maybe because a section heading was placed in between the ping templates and the signature. Courtesy pings, and an apology if this is a duplicate ping, for, , and . I left off anyone who was obviously already aware of this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's likely what happened. The addition of a section heading. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Restore to whatever the page's status was, when this RFC was opened. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Restoration of disputed content:, looking at the state of the discussion above I think it is clear that, at this time there is no consensus to add this tag. Can those who support adding the tag during the RfC support it's inclusion at this time?  Else it should be removed pending the closing of the RfC.  Springee (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I still see a (slim) majority in favor of the tag. Am I missing something? Generalrelative (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Votes =/ consensus. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 00:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are correct about the slim majority but in cases were consensus is decided by the numbers slim margins are typically veiwed as no consensus. Also the consensus for a RfC typically is assessed when the RfC is closed Springee (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on these replies and absent an argument to keep during the RfC I will remove the link tomorrow. Springee (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Should stay out absent a consensus for it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Very late to this discussion but I agree with keeping the article as it was before this RFC began. BogLogs (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Things have slowed down a bit, in the last two weeks. GoodDay (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Requesting closure
Well, nobody else wanted to do it, so I've contacted Closure requests, to have the RFC's result announced. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

POC support
Republicans picked up major gains among POC in 2020 election (eg in Florida). Lead doesn't reflect this. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:7806:A1F3:6293:9034 (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:WEIGHT, that may help explain why. DN (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2022
The Republican Party won 222 seats in the house of representatives and they now control it, why isn't the wiki being updated? Vanerst (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RealAspects (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They don't officially take office until January 2023; the article will be updated then. –CWenger (<big style="font-family:Webdings;">^ • <big style="font-family:Webdings;">@ ) 14:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Political Position
I think political position should be included. I'd say it's safe to say the Republicans are currently Right Wing to Far Right TRJ2008 (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and editors keep bringing it up, only to be shut down time and again by claims that this article is somehow an exception to the rule.'Merica!!! Cheers. DN (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We cannot base content on what editors believe "it's safe to say". We need independent, reliable sources. These are hard to find with the USA right now. Pretty much all non-American sources will tell you it's at least right wing, and probably far worse, but Republicans here will tell you those sources are all evil socialists, and not being American, wouldn't know anyway. This non-American sees the Republican Party right now as being batshit crazy, with an unquenchable, power-at-any-cost ideology, but that doesn't belong in the article either. As the recent House Speaker vote demonstrated, it's not a united entity. Trying to identify a single political position is not going to be easy. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there an RFC held on this? GoodDay (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. The second post effectively mentioned it, and other discussions. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Membership
I’ve put this topic on both Democratic and Republican Party talk pages, because both are shy of much information on this subject.

I recently did an edit on List of largest political parties, adding a footnote to the LEDO as follows:

''The definition of "membership" varies widely from nation to nation, which has a significant bearing on the numbers and percentages listed on this page. For example, United Kingdom memberships are limited to paid-up subscribers to each party. By this description the two dominant parties - Conservative and Labour – together have about half a million members, and are less than one per cent of the UK population. At an opposite extreme, United States memberships can include all registered voters who have self-identified their party preference, and who may number in the tens of millions, making their percentages of US population comparatively large.''

I’m confident of the UK statement, but the US statement, on reflection, raises questions:


 * The numbers which each party claims as “members” are apparently summed up from the 31 states (plus DC) which give voters the option to self-identify their party. That leaves voters in all the other states unaccounted for – therefore a significant undercount. And probably unknowable, since those states don’t ask the question.
 * “Members” in this context seems to be misleading: Very few have any involvement with the party other than casting votes in elections. “Supporters” or “Followers” or a similar term might be more accurate.
 * Is there a “subscriber” or similar level of membership, which gives persons some voice in party policies, candidate selection, etc.? And how does one apply?
 * What qualifies persons to become members of national and state party committees?

I’ve (so far) not been very successful in finding citable answers, or even unverifiable ones. Both parties’ official websites barely touch on the membership subject, beyond asking for financial contributions and volunteer staff. Regards, Kokopelli-UK (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * We have an equivalent problem here in Australia. While we don't have the concept of registered voters, there is no standard definition for what a member of a political party is. One minor but loud party counts as a member everyone who "signs up" on their website, without paying a cent. It makes membership numbers meaningless. My position is that there is really no point trying to include them at all. HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Reverted "married couples" and info on Cuban/Vietnamese
These edits are too much weight and recentism. Married couples isn't a core demographic group or a base that one party can claim, and it's not an NPOV description. And it's misleading to suggest that. 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%);">🚐 20:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This is absolute nonsense at every level. The data is clear and I hope when this is reverted back to my changes- we can add numerous sources, exit polls and data going back 4 decades about how The Republican party has been winning the Cuban and Vietnamese vote since the 1960's- is 63 years recentism? "Married couples isn't a core demographic group or a base that one party can claim" Despite the fact that both the Republican and Democratic page already suggest otherwise? It literally states on it's page single voters is "their" voting bloc. Married voters in 2016 voted for Trump by a 55% to 39% both times, went for Romney by 54%-39%, John Mccain 52%-40%- this trend goes all the way back to the 80's yet "they are not a Republican voting block?"  Despite the fact married voters have been voting Republican for four decades now? The Republican party built it's image around "marital values" and it absolutely needs to be included in a page about Republican voting blocs.
 * Look- This isn't controversial. If we are going to create a page discussing the modern and historical Republican party in the United States, we need to discuss the makeup of the GOP, and each bloc in which they win large majorities. Describing it's voters- Cuban Americans (which have helped them win national elections circa 2000), Vietnamese voters (which helped flip Orange county Red for decades) is an absolute must. I would even say we are doing a disservice to Wikipedia readers by denying them the knowledge that Cuban and Vietnamese Americans have been voting Republican for decades now. Sufficient half (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if that is all true - could you please provide which citations go for these facts? - your proposed text is not NPOV and is misleading. You've written The Republican party wins the support of smaller minority groups which is obviously not supported by any source or data given, since you're cherry-picking Cubans and Vietnamese out of the more conventionally used Asian-American and Hispanic blocs. Your story on marriage is also quite partial and simply saying marriage couples skew Republican is not the whole story. For example, Among those in a domestic partnership, 41% identify as Democrats and just 12% as Republicans. If we counted those as married couples the numbers look even. The Gallup data basically shows the married identification margin of error of 3-4%. So yes, this is controversial and your proposed changes are not NPOV nor are your statements such as he Republican party built it's image around "marital values" NPOV. Really, how about Trump's divorces and flings with porn stars and models? How about Newt Gingrich or Giuliani's marital values? 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%);">🚐 01:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Andre- I don't care about the personal digs at the Republican party. I care about accurate data for Wikipedia readers. I don't like Trump either- but now it's clear your personal misgivings about the GOP is creating this issue when the data is clear and should be included for readers to know. Absolutely everything I wrote was from a NPOV. My edits never said "The GOP built its image around marriage" I was privately telling you that, because the GOP cultivated a "pro-marriage" image in the latter 20th century.
 * 1.) I cherry-picked no data. Cuban and Vietnamese Americans are Republican voting blocs- period. I specifically said "The Republican party does well among "smaller" minority groups, maybe we could say "smaller, sub-groups."
 * 2.) The data on marriage is clear from official national exit polls from CNN, Politico, NYT and every other major network conducting real, nationally recognized voter stats. The marriage vote (not "domestic partnership vote") has been lop-sided towards the GOP by large numbers. To the point that the Democratic page even states "single" voters is a Democratic voting bloc.

Vietnamese Vote:
 * Nationally recognized Asian and Pacific Islander voter organization describes the "Vietnamese exception" https://apiavote.org/wp-content/uploads/2020-Asian-American-Voter-Survey-Sept-15.pdf
 * Nationally Vietnamese voted 57% Republican in 2020. https://www.aaldef.org/press-release/aaldef-exit-poll-asian-americans-favor-biden-over-trump-68-to-29-played-role-in-close-races-in-georgia-and-other-battleground-states/
 * Vietnamese voters in Little Saigon, California voted 53% Republican in 2020 https://www.ocregister.com/2021/03/07/why-did-vietnamese-voters-in-orange-county-swing-toward-trump-in-2020/
 * Vietnamese favors GOP 48% to 36% Dem according to "Asian Americans advancing justice" https://nextshark.com/older-vietnamese-americans-voting-trump
 * 1992 First Vietnamese elected to office, a Republican. New York Times says "Vietnamese arrived here as refugees from a repressive Communist Government, they have been natural constituents for the Republican Party" https://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/16/us/a-vietnamese-american-becomes-a-political-first.html
 * 2008 "67% of Vietnamese voted for Republican John Mccain" https://www.ledgertranscript.com/An-Outlier-of-Asian-Americans-in-the-Election-Conservative-Vietnamese-Voters-36942534

Married vote:
 * 2022 Midterms: 57% of married voters back Republicans https://www.aei.org/society-and-culture/elections-and-demography-the-marriage-gap/
 * 2012 Exit polls showed Romney beat Obama 56-40 in Married Voters - https://www.statista.com/statistics/242819/voter-support-for-barack-obama-and-mitt-romney-in-the-2012-election-by-marital-status/
 * 2016, Republicans won married couples again 52%- 44% https://ifstudies.org/blog/marriage-single-parenthood-and-the-2016-vote
 * 2020 GOP won 54%-44% of the married vote https://www.aei.org/articles/married-americans-keep-voting-red/
 * 2004: 57% Married voters went GOP compared to 42% Democratic https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
 * 2014: 70% of the Republican vote was from married couples https://www.deseret.com/2014/11/10/20552313/marriage-was-a-big-unheralded-factor-in-the-midterm-sweep
 * 2002: 55% of Married couples backed Republican candidates https://news.gallup.com/poll/6976/gender-marriage-gaps-evident-vote-congress.aspx
 * 1987 Data says "Married vote 15% more Republican" https://www.jstor.org/stable/2748737
 * 1984: 63% of Married vote Republican http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/127/the-effect-of-marriage-on-political-identification

Wikipedia article on the marriage gap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_gap#:~:text=Party%20affiliation%20in%20the%20United%20States,-In%20the%20U.S.&text=As%20of%202004%2C%2032%20percent,between%20married%20and%20single%20women. Cuban Voters:
 * Nationally recognized "Americas Society Council on Americas" Which tracks Latino voters with exit polls, Cubans voted Republican by 56-41% in 2020. https://www.as-coa.org/articles/chart-how-us-latinos-voted-2020-presidential-election
 * 2016 Exit polls was the same story: Cubans backed Republicans 54-41 https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/15/unlike-other-latinos-about-half-of-cuban-voters-in-florida-backed-trump/
 * 2004:Bush won 58% of Cuban vote https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/the-hispanic-vote-and-the-u-s-presidential-election/
 * 2000: This is a great article and really shows the entire history of the 1960's-2020 GOP Cuban vote: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2001/05/elian-gonzalez-defeated-al-gore/377714/ Cubans voted 80% for Bush https://www.ocala.com/story/news/2004/06/08/cuban-americans-no-lock-for-gop/31308947007/ Sufficient half (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * now it's clear your personal misgivings about the GOP is creating this issue really, when did I say anything about personal misgiving with the GOP? I just offered a counterexample to your claim about marital values. Your sources are a very mixed bag. Exit polls should not be used for general trends to extrapolate in the lead section. The likes of NextShark are certainly not reliable. Some of these polls are probably fine but cherry picked exit polls showing that Cubans voted for Bush or that Vietnamese voted for Republicans by single-digits and something from the Orange County Register talking about Little Saigon - I don't doubt that there is some truth to what you're saying, but it's not sufficient to take this and then say "smaller" minority groups, maybe we could say "smaller, sub-groups." How are the Cuban and Vietnamese community sufficient to say "the Republicans do well among smaller minority groups" that is quite an exaggeration and an extrapolation. The point of this article is to explain the most salient things about the Republican Party. That they tend to win Vietnamese or Cuban people by single digits also means that 40-something% of Vietnamese and Cuban people vote for Democrats. There isn't anything particularly about the Vietnamese and Cuban community that pertains to the Republican Party. I'm not saying the trend doesn't exist on some level but that doesn't mean it belongs in the lead section as written. 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%);">🚐 04:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see your logic in stating the counterexamples, however you are still misunderstanding me. I am NOT saying the Republican party is the "party of marriage" personally. I assumed you were aware of their efforts in the 1970's-1980's-1990's to become the party of reenforcing marital values. I didn't want to come across as if I was advocating for the Republican party, I see their flaws just like you do- but their efforts were successful and beginning in 1972 they largely won the martial vote in each and every election (with brief pluralities in 1976, 1992, 1996) and I apologize for the impression of a partisan hack.
 * As a political science major, I know this information is correct. With all due respect, I don't have to cherry pick anything. This is nothing short of ridiculous. No, these are nationally recognized, widely researched voter demographics. Not one of my exit polls are cherry picked. Not one. Because the data is so wide-and-large for the things I'm saying, I actually had a hard time picking which articles because I could have used any of them. Meaning, you will not find data to the contrary on those years. You are playing semantics with words, regardless of how it's decided to word this- Republicans win Vietnamese, Cuban and Married voters. Just "single" digits? You realize with your logic you would have to take "white voters" away from Republicans, because they only win between 55-59% of White voters on average... but obviously we know white voters are in fact are a Republican voting block, because any group of people you consistently win a majority of IS a voting block. And it's not single digits. When you are winning on average 55-56-57-58-59% margins, that's double digit margins between 10-19 percentage points. I said "Republicans win SOME smaller minority groups" There is nothing wrong with that. These are Republican voting blocks no matter how you want to slice it, dice it, what exit poll you want to use, I have studied the American electorate and I know which groups vote what for the last 40 years.
 * When the GOP has been winning the Cuban vote for DECADES by double digits both now and historically, that's a Republican voting bloc (and helps explain Florida's political status as a Republican stronghold, and their 2000 presidential victory) When the GOP has been winning the married vote by double digit margins both now and historically, that's a voting bloc (We even have a "Marriage gap" wiki article on it) and it's a widely written about topic since the 1980's by scholars, universities and political scientist since Reagan. When you have been winning the Vietnamese vote for decades and the party is responsible for sending the first Vietnamese American to congress and opening the United States to Vietnamese refugees in 1973, that's a voting bloc. I realize you don't like the Orange County Register talking about Little Saigon, the largest ethnic Vietnamese population outside of Vietnam, but it's true.
 * As an expert on the American politics, it pains me to have this discussion with you saying things like "The point of this article is to explain the most salient things about the Republican Party" No, the specific topic was "What groups lean Republican" and I was adding useful information that anyone would need to know in order to get a broader, better understanding of the Republican leaning groups. The appropriate hyper-link taking readers to Cuban American page, the Vietnamese American page (if they choose to click that) would explain their status as refugees from communist regimes. These voters fled communism and ended up being a strong, reliable Republican voting bloc. (I wasn't going to add that information but it's in their respective wiki pages)
 * I also noticed the article was written poorly, and the explanation of Republican voter demographics could be improved (also the composition towards the end of the article which attempts to explain again their demographics) . It wouldn't take but two or three sentences to inform the reader the Republicans win over a majority of White women, Married couples, and Cuban and Vietnamese Americans. Remember, I also added white women as a Republican voter demographic, as 55% (and usually more) voted for Republicans in 2020 and have been voting Republican since 1952. I feel this is the more informative, historically accurate approach to take to give Wiki readers the best understanding for the modern Republican party voter base in 2023. Sufficient half (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The article does NOT need to summarize every minority group that has a single-digit lead in the Republican voter exit polls. The reason why the white working class is listed is because of its relationship to the 2016 election shifts in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania which allowed Trump to win the presidency, that have flipped back in 2018, 2020 and 2022 cycle so far. This is covered in extensive WP:WEIGHT in reliable sources regardless of how we feel about it, so being in the lead makes sense to me. It's a big part of the Republican strategy. While I agree with you that Cubans tend to vote Republican, that doesn't mean that Cubans need to be in the lead, nor should it follow that Republicans do well with smaller minority groups based on that. Previously we had something about Orthodox Jews in the lead because Republicans tend to win Orthodox Jews pretty handily, but again, that won't follow to say Republicans do well with Jews in general - where the trend is the opposite (similar to how Democrats win Asian-Americans but not Vietnamese Americans, Democrats win Hispanics but not Cubans). So your edits and proposal continues to be cherry-picked and misleading. I understand you claim to be an expert but that does not justify such edits. You should brush up on Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:5P, and others. 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%);">🚐 19:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC.)
 * I agree this fails NPOV.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, these are not "Republican exit polls" These are widely researched, extensively published voter data going back 60 years. NYT, Politico, CNN, University studies- you name your pick. It's there. What is the issue with including voter demographic groups Republicans win, on a paragraph talking about groups of voters they win?! This is asinine.
 * Again, if you are winning 55-59% of a group, that's double digits. You keep saying "single digits" that's not true. Just like you said "recentism" and I proved to you that wasn't true.
 * When Republicans have courted- and won- the married vote BY DOUBLE DIGITS with the only exception being 1976, 1992, 1996 for the last 50 years- shame on you guys for depriving Wiki readers of pertinent information regarding demographic groups that vote for Republican party and historical and present day groups that swing to the GOP.
 * A simple "Republicans have been successful winning the married vote, with notable support in Cuban and Vietnamese communities" is literally 1 sentence- and both you and I know the "Fails NPOV" is a blatant lie. Sufficient half (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Link to the 1960 election polling on Vietnamese-American votes?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, calling me a blatant liar, that's going to get you far here. Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Furthermore you cannot edit your posts after I responded to them and your proposed language of taking Cubans and Vietnamese and saying that Republicans therefore win smaller minority groups does indeed fail NPOV. As far as recentism, my point is that things move up and down and trend this way and that in terms of what is actually an important aspect of the Republican Party to mention in its lead section. For example, this piece from 2021 says recent analyses of the 2020 election show that in the past five years, married men, though still more Republican than not, significantly shifted in the direction of Democrats. You wrote that in 1984 63% of married people voted Republican, and 2002 it was 55%. It's recentism to say the trend is up based on it being 58% that's still lower than the 80s. 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%);">🚐 04:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are continuing to take what I am saying out of context, I did not say you are a liar. (In fact, I wasn't even talking to you) I said the idea what I want to include is NPOV, is a lie, we both know that bias is at play here (and with you) I have been clear from the beginning I am willing to compromise on the wording used.
 * Yes, I edited my comments because you continue to take them out of context and I have to make things crystal, crystal clear with you because you continue to twist what I am saying.
 * What you just described is "a trend" and not a historical voting bloc.
 * I am describing decades of voter trends, in double digit winning margins- going back to the 1972.
 * It seems as if you are stuck on the "smaller minority voting blocs" when I have been absolutely clear I am open to compromise on wording.
 * The current, sloppy Republicans win " rural areas, white evangelical Christians, and men, especially white men" could be:
 * "The Republican party wins white voters, primarily men but also majorities of white women, rural areas, White evangelical Christians and while losing the Latino and Asian vote, have seen success with Cuban and Vietnamese voters"
 * Sufficient half (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You do realize by your logic, "Women" would have to be removed from the "Democratic voting bloc" because in most elections, they don't even win women by double margins, and when they do its 57% or 58% of female voters? The exact margin I'm describing. This is very faulty logic- the fact of the matter is the voters I have described have backed Republicans in 9 of the last 12 elections by dougle-digit margins and it's widely known. Sufficient half (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "The Republican party wins white voters, primarily men but also majorities of white women, married couples, rural areas, White evangelical Christians and while losing the Latino and Asian vote, have seen success with Cuban and Vietnamese voters"
 * I also included married couples, I see the Democratic page has "single people" as a voting bloc, and it's both fair and accurate to the data considering Democrats have not won the married vote since 1976, and Republicans often times win it by double margins. Sufficient half (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your proposed text is better and moving in the right direction. I still think the married couples statistic leaves out same-sex marriages and domestic partnerships. But I supposed that can be left out - but I do not think the Cuban and Vietnamese are significant enough for the lead for the same reasoning. 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%);">🚐 06:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, yay! I'm getting excited, we are working towards consensus (seems political, huh?) Ha, but on a serious note that's a great point.
 * "The Republican party wins white voters, primarily men but also majorities of white women, heterosexual married couples, rural areas, White evangelical Christians and while losing the Latino and Asian vote, have seen success with Cuban and Vietnamese voters"
 * Just really communicate to me what exactly it is about those two groups that makes you want to leave them out? We have the information already included on their respective wiki pages, they are won by pretty solid margins and together they form 5,000,000 Americans. Don't you feel the only two minority blocs Republicans win is sort of an important note? Sufficient half (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, if you want to add that, I won't revert it, it seems like an OK compromise 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%);">🚐 06:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

UTC)
 * I am still waiting for 60 years' data as promised.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

ECR Party
I'm curious to why the addition of the GOP's regional partnership to the European Conservatives and Reformists Party isn't in the infobox?

Here: European_Conservatives_and_Reformists_Party ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is the abolishment of slavery never mentioned in the article?
It's one of the most important, if not the most important thing this party has done, so why not include it here? Leonidas8337 (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It is briefly mentioned at the top, but still Leonidas8337 (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're kidding, aren't you? The word appears two dozen times, starting in the second sentence. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's their anti-slavery platform. Not the abolition itself. These are different, since anti-slavery was not just abolition at the time. People also considered deporting the slaves to Africa and stuff... Leonidas8337 (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It's already mentioned in the introductory statement "The GOP was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists who opposed the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which allowed for the potential expansion of chattel slavery into the western territories". What's the issue? LostKlaus (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's their anti-slavery platform. Not the abolition itself. These are different, since anti-slavery was not just abolition at the time. People also considered deporting the slaves to Africa and stuff... Leonidas8337 (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Abolition/Anti-slavery platform is mentioned numerous times in the article. It's literally mentioned in the second sentence in the article and then expanded on in the "History" section.  I don't know what the OP is objecting to.  It doesn't seem like they read the article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

2015 Gallup poll party identification, under "composition"
I am recommending a minor, but important change regarding accuracy and up-to-date information. Gallop has released newer 2023 data. This newer 2023 gallops shows a 3 point advantage to Democrats when including Independent leaners, but equal support among party-identification.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/467897/party-preferences-evenly-split-2022-shift-gop.aspx Sufficient half (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * We need to be careful not to just add the most recent data point and instead consider a long-term, 10 year view. 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%);">🚐 18:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, northeastern states became more reliably Democratic
I suggest this passage be removed from numerous parts of the article, (I'll do it myself, if given the go ahead). I know it seems minor, but in light of electoral and historical evidence it holds no weight when we consider the fact that the majority of New England, and North Eastern States for that matter; voted for John F Kennedy way before the civil rights act was passed, in 1960,.  And continued to vote Republican after his successor Johnson , in 100% of North-Eastern states voting Republican 1972, 5/8 (62.5%) North-Eastern states vote Republican in 1976, 100% in 1980, 100% in 1984, 75% Vote Republican in 1988...

During this time- the Republican party dominated the majority of state legislatures in the area, gubernatorial races and local politics all over New England, including North Eastern US. The northeastern part of the United States is primarily defined as: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. When making the statement "North-eastern states started voting reliably Democratic after 1964" we should have evidence supporting that, now- they did vote for Johnson 1964 (National Democratic sweep), and 1968- but became Republican voting blocs thereafter in 1972-1988 for another 16 years. The entire sentence just needs to be deleted, or rephrased "After 1988, the Northeast became Democratic voting blocs" We need to replace 1964 with 1988. "After 1988, the north-east became reliably Democratic"

Yes, I realize there are many citations for it, but the majority of citations actually said nothing about the specific regions of North East America, New England Politics or when they shifted (exception for one, which again- lets look at the evidence)

Did the civil rights act move the south? Yes. But the North couldn't have cared less- minorities made up less than 4% of the region. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/77667/tduvall.pdf

The Wiki Page Northeastern United States says correctly "The Northeastern United States tended to vote Republican in federal elections through the first half of the 20th century, but the region has since the 1990s shifted to become the most Democratic in the nation"

GOP Domination in North Eastern states 1984 article remarking on the scale of GOP dominance: https://www.csmonitor.com/1984/1115/111530.html

This article explains how the Democratic party had marginal, limited success througout New England but it remained Presidentially; and gubernatorially a Republican strong hold until 1992. https://mikeholme.substack.com/p/how-the-northeast-became-democratic-b1f

This article makes mention of a shifting North-eastern voting bloc: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-10-04-9203300664-story.html "Maine and Connecticut, heavily suburban states safely in the GOP column since 1968, and in Vermont, a state that has voted just once for a Democrat, backing Lyndon Johnson in his 1964 landslide".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/11/01/the-northeast/c3c06358-b160-4243-a1cb-9cf43be3dccb/ 1988 explains every North Eastern states Republicans, and the historical nature of their struggle

Highly informative research article shows Republicans had no issues in the region until the mid-1980's- https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/77667/tduvall.pdf

Sufficient half (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The GOP has a far-right wing which needs to be included in the info box
The GOP has a far-right wing, and that should be listed under its ideologies. I did included that (sourced), but was asked to discuss that here because it's supposedly "controversial". There's plenty of pieces by reliable sources on the the GOP's far right, and not including it describes the GOP inaccurately. Cortador (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Talking about the infobox is pointless until there's content in the body of the article. Drafting such language so that it's neutral, due, and accepted by conesnsus is not a trivial undertaking. Someone needs to put in the work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Bruh
I’m so sorry but stuff in the infobox is clearly meant to give a negative attitude like saying that trump is the leader for example I can see trumpism being included as an ideology but I don’t think trump being stated as the party leader should be there as he is not officially the party leader 2600:8801:1187:7F00:C45E:FC00:D9C1:9A7E (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * That was a bold edit recently made by User:Thiscouldbeauser, I've gone ahead and reverted it. ––FormalDude (talk)  11:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Geoblocking of the official website
Shouldn't there be an observation in the infobox that the official website of the GOP is geoblocked? I couldn't enter the site except through a VPN. FlavianusEP (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2023
I would like to remove the text stating "As of the 2020s, the party does best among voters who are lower class,[22] have lower incomes;[22] ". This is incorrect, as data from the 2020 shows (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1184428/presidential-election-exit-polls-share-votes-income-us/) the Republican party performs best with voters who earn more than $100,000, and worst amongst voters who earn less than $50,000, the exact opposite of what this piece of text claims. The source that the piece of text uses (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/polarization-of-the-rich-the-new-democratic-allegiance-of-affluent-americans-and-the-politics-of-redistribution/E18D7DAE3A1EF35BA5BC54DE799F291B) does not make any claims about Republican doing best amongst lower class or low income voters at all. ChDaMcDa (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're right about removing that information; source 22 discusses that affluent voters have shifted towards the Democratic party, but says nothing about the Republican party growing among lower-income or lower-class voters. There's also no discussion of income in the body of the article; the body of the article discusses composition of the party in terms of gender, education, ethnicity, and religion, with no mention of income.  I'm going to remove the statement on that fact alone; if we're going to discuss economics of party supporters in the lead, it should be fully fleshed out in the body first.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Political positions - Education?
I was curious to why there is no education section within political positions? The Democratic Party has one and Political positions of the Republican Party has a section dedicated towards education already. So could that education section be transferred towards this (main) page? (As well as some others perhaps).

Also why is there no mention of the Republican party being Regional/global partners of the European Conservatives and Reformists Party (ECR) in the infobox? Other regional/global partners have the ECR mentioned in their infoboxs such as Likud and formerly the Conservative Party of Canada. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Political Position in Lead Paragraph
I would dispute the party being referred to as “center-right” in the first introduction paragraph, especially given that the two sources provided for it both predate the Obama presidency. I think “right-wing” would be a more appropriate label for the modern GOP. Psherman122 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please offer reliable sources that describe the party as "right wing". If I were to peruse the talk page archives I suspect you aren't the first person to attempt to do this. 331dot (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I did add the party having a far-right wing (reliable sources included), but that was removed too, so what even is the point when half the editors are twisting themselves into pretzels to not acknowledge the GOP's actual position? Cortador (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that was a reasonable addition. Most political parties have what are often called the hard liners.  That appears to be what is being described here.  Additionally, news media sources, especially ones like Vice or sources that are describing an event rather than the party itself are not good sources for this sort of generalized statement.  In this case the WashPo and NYT are identifying these people as the hardliners.  We cannot assume they are using our "far-right" definition which includes things like white nationalism.  Springee (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Two of the articles explicitly mention white suprematism. Since you evidently didn't even read the sources before reverting the edit, I'll restore it. Cortador (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide the quotes rather than restoring this material. Springee (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The WashPo article is an opinion article so not a good source for this sort of claim. Vice is no where near good enough for this sort of board statement.  So that leaves just one source (I can't easily access NYT articles due to the paywall).  This is no where near the sort of sourcing you need for such a claim and restoring it without clear consensus was not a good move.  Springee (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please actually read the sources. The WP piece is not an opinion piece (the WP has a dedicated section for those), it's part of Made by History, which features historian as guest writers/editors. Your personal dislike of Vice doesn't disqualify it (especially as it's not the only source), and you admitted that you didn't read the NYT article. I've added further sources. The GOP has an extremist wing, it's widely reported, and needs be included in this article. Cortador (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Scepticism around Vice isn't a "personal dislike". Per WP:VICE, there have been no fewer than 7 discussions around its reliability and no consensus was able to establish that it is a reliable source. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 09:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove the Vice source then. The claim is also backed up by five other sources. Cortador (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The WP is a commentary/opinion article. To make such a claim about the party, something more than just it had its hardliners you need something more that two newspaper articles.  Ideally you need more that two scholarly articles that specifically address this topic.  You don't have consensus so please stop restoring the disputed content. Springee (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And what if it's just hardliners? The sentence in question states "The modern Republican Party includes..." Hardliners are part of that. Why should they be excluded? Also, at the time of your reversal, I had included five sources, not two (as you claimed), which once more proves that you don't even look at what you edit. Cortador (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * First, is kind of a sky is blue statement that major political parties have hardliners and more moderate members. That isn't a faction so much as a level of compromise they will accept.  Second, linking to our far-right article which suggests neo Nazis etc is a stretch.  To make that sort of association you really need very strong and many sources.  You don't have that and it won't come from opinion articles. Springee (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are trying to dodge the fact that there's no reason to exclude what you call "hardliners". Other parties have them too? Cool, include that in their articles too. Also, I don't care about the far right article, because Wikipedia isn't a source, and you shouldn't use whatever a Wikipedia article states as a source. I have provided sources that state that the GOP includes far right members, and that's what I want included in the article. Cortador (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a reason to not include it as you have done. This isn't the first time this sort of topic has come up.  That hardliners exist is sky is blue.  When you start associating the party with neo Nazis you need to both step up your sourcing and get consensus. Springee (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Explain to me why what you call "hardliners" should not be included. And I never brought up neo-Nazis (that is your strawman) - I brought up the far right, and my sources back that up.
 * Regarding your "sky is blue" statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue Itz doesn't even apply here. "The sky is blue" refers to statements that don't require citations. "The GOP has a far right wing" isn't that. Cortador (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks well sourced and relevant, but I presume it will require an WP:RFC to have any chance of being implemented, as is the case for even the most obvious changes to this page. ––FormalDude (talk)  23:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is the bar so ridiculously high for the GOP including far righters? Right now, all other wings only have one source, which many sources being from a decade ago, and one (fiscal conservatives) has no source. "Right-wing populists" has two news articles, "centrists" has a single article. Are all those more valid than, say, this source (and entire book about the GOP and white nationalism): https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003182962/white-nationalism-republican-party-john-ehrenberg Cortador (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, they're not more valid at all. Per WP:BESTSOURCE we value academic sources higher than news stories. I.e. your book from a professor of political science is a much better source. ––FormalDude (talk)  13:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2023
Remove Trumpism and Russophilia from the ideology page 2601:183:100:B70:58E3:9E0F:7BE0:1283 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. M.Bitton (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Position
I'm changing the position to "centre-right to right-wing". Works well. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Longstanding consensus is not to include a political position in the infobox. If you want to change it you'll need to achieve consensus first. ––FormalDude (talk)  11:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the rationale for this? Not including a political position of a political party in the infobox is absurd. Cortador (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's a way to just dodge the endless disputes around what position to include. I don't think it's a good solution, personally. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 09:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because infoboxes do a terrible job of explaining a nuanced idea in enough detail to make it wise to use it for that purpose. The political positions of the Republican party are varied (and variable) and are not easily captured with a single phrase.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would have thought a simple "Right-wing" would be broad enough to capture the party at a snapshot. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 13:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really. From the perspective of the 95% of the people in the world who aren't Americans (and who may all use Wikipedia), both the Republicans AND the Democrats are right wing. We need to somehow identify the difference. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * From another perspective, both parties are centrist. It all depends on what one means by these terms. TFD (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and our own article on what the term means really isn't all that helpful. My longer term thoughts are that it our job to describe what a party says, and does (often quite different things), and leave it to the reader to categorise the party as they see fit, and if they really feel the need to. Simplistic labels in Infoboxes serve no real purpose. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since when is it Wikipedia's job to ensure that parties are distinguishable? If reliable sources describe both parties are right-wing, so be it. Cortador (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I think a broader range is needed: Big tent, or Center-right to far-right. Also, states have different positions for both parties. State Republican parties in, say, New England tend to be center-right or even centrist, while some, such as Arizona, are clearly far-right. (It's true for Democrats too, some in the Deep South are center-right, while others in the Northeast and West Coast are center-left to left-wing). CrazyC83 (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

"Russophilia"
Why on Earth is 'Russophilia' listed in the 'ideology' section, let alone classified as being held by the majority? Is there any basis or source for this? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No. It should be removed. KlayCax (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It was added by an editor without prior discussion. I've removed it now. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 16:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Permission to remove "Christian right" from infobox?
Does anyone object to removing "Christian right" from the infobox? It's not an ideological faction of the Republican Party per se. KlayCax (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There seem to be some sources listed there. I'd say wait for consensus on that. DN (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously, evangelical Christianity is influential among significant factions of the party, but religious groups are almost never listed in the infoboxes of political parties.
 * "Christian right" is basically just social conservatism - which is already covered. KlayCax (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources would be more helpful here. While the Christian right, or the religious right, might be characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies, it seems you are claiming it doesn't count as an ideology of the republican party and/or doesn't carry enough WP:WEIGHT for inclusion, despite what current reliable sources seem to say. Please correct me if I am off base here. DN (talk)
 * "but religious groups are almost never listed in the infoboxes of political parties." OK? I wasn't the one that added it to the infobox, but I'm not sure "what other political party articles do" alone is enough for a consensus here. Best of luck though. DN (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "Christian right" isn't a specific church or religious association. It's a group of people that are part of the GOP, are right-wing, and consider themselves Christian. It's sourced as well. Cortador (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Married people edits
I don't support the phrasing of the recent married couple edits. I think it's an overgeneralization and overweighing a minor trend in a vague oversimplifying way. 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%);">🚐 23:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I think there's some information worth including, but some of the sources only place the difference of married people voting GOP versus Dem at 53/47% or so i.e. not a massive trend. The only very clear data is unmarried women voting Dem. However, none of the articles discusses demographics much i.e. I have the feeling this is just old people voting GOP more often. I'd say leave it at mentioning a clear minority unmarried women voting GOP. That's the data all sources appear to agree on. Cortador (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

6 April edit to body and lead
, would you please explain this edit where you appear to remove long standing content relating to the GOP trying to reduce government? It appears to be well sourced however, your second edit summary suggests it wasn't. Was there a prior discussion on this topic? Springee (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey, . That sentence actually isn't longstanding. I personally added it as a temporary addition in February 2023 from the present article on American conservatism. (See here.)
 * Several editors objected to the "individualism" and "limited government" part. Saying that while many Republicans say so in principle their actual policies don't actually shrink the government and/or are not individualist. (Particularly on social policy.) Republicans have also become significantly less libertarian/individualist-oriented since 2016. (Arguably, increasingly since Goldwater. Some explicitly identify as the exact opposite of individualist/libertarian)
 * I'm not sure what the ideal solution to this is. But after thinking about the direction of the party it certainly seems that this sentence is likely only representing a fraction of the party at best. KlayCax (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. I don't think the removal was an improvement but if it was a recent addition then I agree that we need consensus to include vs exclude. Springee (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)