Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 27

Removal of cited context in the Far Right sub-section
has removed context cited by Joe Feagin from his most recent book. The context appears in chapter 3 "Manufacturing White Racism, Ignorance, and Fear" (abstract:Here Feagin highlights how the contemporary white conservative and Republican Party turn toward more overt white supremacist framing and actions is not new, for it has its origins in the 1950s–1960s white suburbs of metropolitan areas.) Do we need to debate whether or not the far-right faction of the Republican party supports white supremacy, or is this somehow different from the Radical right (United States)? Until this is resolved I feel it is a possible NPOV violation to leave it out, so hopefully a banner will help encourage more discussion. Cheers. DN (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The book doesn't say, that (far right) Republicans support white supremacism. I have nothing against the source, it's valid and reliable. But saying, that Republicans support white supremacism is baseless, it doesn't appear in the book Udehbwuh (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "But saying, that Republicans support white supremacism is baseless" - That's not what it said.
 * The context was... "The Republican far-right faction supports white supremacism."
 * See the difference?
 * Perhaps we need some clarification in regard to what constitutes the far-right factions of the Republican party, however, I am fairly certain the far-right (regardless of party) seems to support white supremacy. Events such as the Unite the Right rally seem indicative of this aspect. According to the SPLC, "The white nationalist movement has been greatly aided by the continued radicalization of the GOP, exhibited by the party’s embrace of racist concepts like the “great replacement,” vilification of immigrants, attacks on reproductive care and demonization of queer and trans people."
 * If you remain unconvinced, perhaps wait for others to chime in, or check with the WP:TEAHOUSE
 * Cheers. DN (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I know, that the discussion here is about far-right faction, and under "Republicans' I mean the far-right faction. But still, the book doesn't say, that the far-right faction supports white supremacism. And white nationalism and white supremacy are different things. Udehbwuh (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "white nationalism and white supremacy are different things." How different exactly? Setting Joe Feagin's book aside, let's look at yet another example. Namely, the America First Political Action Conference. Would you say some of the Republican attendees at this event qualify as members of the Republican far-right faction? DN (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, being far-right and supporting white supremacy are different things. Not all far-right politians support white supremacy. Udehbwuh (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Where did it ever say "all far-right politians support white supremacy"?
 * Please point it out to us. DN (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you also familiar with the Proud Boys? DN (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bringing up Proud Boys is meaningless, as this organization has been condemned by all mainstream political parties and news outlets. And it isn't aligned with the Republican Party Udehbwuh (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Really?... DN (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will repeat it again, proud boys isn't aligned with the Republican Party. No party officials voiced support for the organization and multiple of them condemned it. Udehbwuh (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Repetition does not equal clarity, as far as I'm aware. DN (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No party officials voiced support for the organization... except, of course, Donald Trump, the last GOP president. Cortador (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the 2020 presidential debate, as far as I know, he told proud boys "stand back and stand by". And by the way, the discussion here is about, whether the far-right faction supports white supremacy. There is no point in talking about proud boys. They aren't even related to the topic Udehbwuh (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If there's no point in talking about them, why do you talk about the Proud Boys then? Cortador (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * it's not me started talking about them, as you can see Udehbwuh (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you join the conversation then? Cortador (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't clog the talk page with unnecessary discussions Udehbwuh (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you join the discussion about the Proud Boys if you seem it unnecessary? Cortador (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was asked, whether I know Proud Boys, and I answered the question. I didn't intent to engage in an unnecessary debate. That's why I proposed to stop this discussion Udehbwuh (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The book states: "Far-right Republican politicians in Congress - very disproportionally white and male - rarely will compromise on major legislative matters with moderate and liberal Democratic Party politicians. Their mostly white voter base often penalizes them for departing from an arch-conservative "party line". Indeed, these politically and racially extremist Republicans have often been backed or featured in the conservative talk radio and television commentary programs. This intentional, and frequently profitable, political polarization has resulted in the near extinction of moderate Republicans and has brought about legislative paralysis or arch-conservative legislative domination at numerous local, state, and federal government levels of the past few decades."
 * I'd call "racially extremist Republicans" which are also predominantly white and have a likewise predominantly white voter base "white supremacists", but I'm willing to call them "white racially extremists" instead. Cortador (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Calling them "white supremacists" and claiming that they support white supremacism is an original research. Udehbwuh (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What distinguishes white racial extremists from white supremacists? Cortador (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. With all these loaded terms, it is probably best to stick to direct quotes. Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Loaded according to whom? Cortador (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Me. Or at least, how I interpret the rules. Instead of all this pointless bickering, why not quote directly from RS? That's the best solution to these kinds of disputes. Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's nothing contentious about far-right politicians being white supremacists. Cortador (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As long as you provide reliable sources for that claim, which you haven't Udehbwuh (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I believe including an attribution to Feagin would also be appropriate, so that can be reapplied into the Far-right subsection in some manner. DN (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, considering how hellbent some editors here are on erasing that information. Cortador (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good cut to me. That absolutely is a statement that needs lots of context.  Part of the issue is the statement is presented as an absolute.  While I'm sure some of the far right republicans are white supremists, claiming all are is an issue.  Given the absolutist nature of the claim this absolutely needs multiple reliable sources.  Per ONUS this should be out until better sourcing and consensus has been established. Springee (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't see a reason for the NPOV tag. Springee (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So you disagree that no mention of White supremacy in a section about the far right faction of the Republican party seems like a pretty big omission? DN (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You'll need reliable sources for that claim. There is no information in the book, that would confirm far-right factions "supports" white supremacy Udehbwuh (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the book is probably just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, but that's just my opinion. DN (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose I can put together an RfC... Something like this?
 * "Does the far-right faction of the Republican party support white supremacy?"
 * Short and sweet. DN (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't be an appropriate RfC since you haven't provided the supporting sources nor provided some sort of evidence how widely this view is supported by a range of historians (not just ones on the left). Springee (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, a more appropriate question might be closer to...
 * "Are there elements/politicians within the far-right faction of the Republican party that appeal to white supremacy?"
 * DN (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That isn't a good question. As a parallel, consider this sort of misleading question.  "Is there an element of the far-left Democrats that appeal to freeloaders who just don't want to pay back their student loans?"  The implication in that example quote is that the Democrats are deliberately appealing to undesirable traits in order to buy votes.  Your question suggests something similar with respect to white supremacy.  That isn't to say a white supremist wouldn't find something appealing in say a "close the boarder" policy.  However, the problem is deciding if the policy is meant to appeal to the racists or if it's meant to address what many view as a problem.  Does fixing the roads appeal to the racists or to others as well? Springee (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a rhetorical question, and makes engaging with you seem absolutely pointless. DN (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * DN, I'm not trying to question your good faith in this discussion. I'm saying the problem with that question is it asks, in effect, do the WS people like this.  The more relevant question would be, is this a demographic the GOP is actively chasing.  The question has an association fallacy built in.  As this is an encyclopedia, we shouldn't use the language of persuasion.  Rather we should be clinical in how we present things.  Sadly, many of the sources we tend to use are not. Springee (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Which historians "on the left"? You are using weasel words here to dilute the issue. Cortador (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems to be ducking the comment I made. Springee (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Which historians "on the left"? Cortador (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are taking a generalized statement and trying to turn it into something it wasn't meant to be. Are you suggesting that no historians/political scholars have left/right biases?  Your comment suggests as much but I doubt you really believe such a view. Springee (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Which historians "on the left"? Cortador (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in feeding your red herring. Springee (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Then bring some less weasly than "leftist historians" as a reason to exclude content from the article. The onus is on you to do that. Cortador (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason for excluding that part is an impossibility to verify that information, because it simply doesn't exist in the provided source Udehbwuh (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Every time I do, you curiously stop replying - likely because you know that you don't have a case. Cortador (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe I stop replying from time to time because I have other things to do? That's firstly. Secondly, you still haven't provided any reliable sources, that would confirm your claim. You stated as a fact, that the far-right faction of Republicans "support whir supremacy", though there is nothing in your book, that would confirm this. And again, "racially extremist" doesn't necessarily mean white supremacists. It's your interpretation, that you're trying so hard to push. Udehbwuh (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And yet you have time to write this reply. But to get back on topic: What distinguishes white racial extremists from white supremacists? This is the fourth time you will dodge that question. Cortador (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No matter, what I will answer. It won't change anything Udehbwuh (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Predictably, you still can't answer the question. Cortador (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Tell us what you think is the difference or if you think they are the same. Asking the same question over and over is not going anywhere and is becoming disruptive.  If you think people don't know the answer to your question just stare as much and then tell us why you think it matters. Springee (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are the one advocating the removal of cited content from the article, and have repeatedly failed to justify why, and likewise failed to gain consensus for the removal. The burden is in you, yet you have nothing to offer but weasel words ("leftist historians"), and as soon as your flimsy reasoning faces scrutiny, you accuse others of being disruptive. Cortador (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You've been told multiple times, why that part has been removed. There is simply nothing in that book, that would confirm your unsubstantiated claim. What do you want us to prove? The absence of something, that doesn't exist? Udehbwuh (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have provided you with the part of the book that supports my claim, and you have repeatedly failed to explain why, in your eyes, it doesn't do so, with your latest excuse being that you don't have enough time to reply. Cortador (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest you to read this: WP:Verify Udehbwuh (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Which historians "on the left"? Cortador (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I will suggest you to read this WP:Verify. It's impossible to verify your bold claim, that more looks like an original research Udehbwuh (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have verified it, and weasly claims that the author of that book is too left won't change that. Cortador (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't. You're just pushing your own interpretation, that is impossible to verify Udehbwuh (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What distinguishes white racial extremists from white supremacists? This is the third time I'm asking you that, and every time I do, you can't answer the question. Cortador (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If they are the same thing, which you seem to imply, why have two terms? Why use the term the source didn't use?  But that doesn't get to the issue of DUE or even if the source supports what was put in the Wiki article if, for argument sake, we say the terms are identical in meaning. Springee (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks you likewise are unable to tell me what distinguishes the two terms. Cortador (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit war
I think the best thing to do at this point is include an attribution to Feagin and more closely reflect the language he used, ie "racial extremists", in order to obtain consensus, for now. I don't endorse generalizing all far right republican politicians as endorsing white supremacy, however there are plenty of sources stating that many are endorsing the white supremacist conspiracy theory of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the United States. Agreed? DN (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This is what I was talking about elsewhere/earlier in this. Direct quotes (especially attributed) are probably the best way to handle something like this. Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At most this needs to be an attributed quote. However, I'm still very concerned about how much (if any) weight this claim should get.  Looking at the list of sources (many just so-so), it appears most of this comes down to some GOP members talking about GRCT adjacent ideas.  The GOP members seem to be saying they think the Democrats are pushing for more immigration as they feel it will shift voting demographics.  That idea certainly is compatible with the GRCT but it's not the same.  The idea that Democrats would favor immigration with the expectation it would help them at the poles is hardly a new idea.  It's easy to find news articles from a decade or more in the past that basically state as much.  For example, Politico,, "The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation’s political landscape for a generation or more — pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily."  If we are going to include claims of supporting GRCT then I would hope we could explain what is different now vs a decade back when something similar wasn't considered a conspiracy theory.  Absent this clear path between clear claim of racism and the facts at hand I don't think this should be included as it comes off as current day partisanship rather than impartial, hindsight evaluation.  In effect these claims should wait until they are hindsight evaluations and other historians have had a chance to review them. Springee (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your source doesn't mention GRCT, or any conspiracy theory. Cortador (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are right, that is exactly the point. The idea that the Democrats have an incentive allow more immigrants in because it helps them at the polls isn't new or controversial or a new.  However, in many of the sources that DN provided the authors, not the GOP politicians, are the ones who make the leap from an old, non-controversial idea to a conspiracy theory.  It's powerful political rhetoric when you can take a long understood and accepted idea (Democrats favor all types of immigration as it helps them at the polls) and turn it into a racist conspiracy theory (unamed powerful people are doing this to make the population less white).  This is why we're should take the long term view of this rather than following RECENT reporting.  This is especially true since the book in question is less than a year old.  Who is trip say if it will have staying power. Springee (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you dismiss sources because you don't agree what the authors state, you are just doing original research. Cortador (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. Nobody has brought forward arguments why this information shouldn't be included. We've had repeated claims above that the book doesn't support the statement, yet after providing a quote and asking five times why it supposedly doesn't, I have yet to receive an answer. Cortador (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is the proposed quote mentioned earlier...
 * "Indeed, these politically and racially extremist Republicans have often been backed or featured in the conservative talk radio and television commentary programs. This intentional, and frequently profitable, political polarization has resulted in the near extinction of moderate Republicans and has brought about legislative paralysis or arch-conservative legislative domination at numerous local, state, and federal government levels of the past few decades." - Joe Feagin
 * DN (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest we use GRCT as a lead in. We have nearly 40 reliably sourced citations, some from scholars and academics. I couldn't care less if anyone here considers them "so-so"...but we should aspire to find consensus, regardless. DN (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. It's not something the politicians are claiming and when 3rd party sources are using it they are conflating a long accepted idea, Democrats are immigration as helping them at the polls, with someone racist that the GOP politicians aren't actually saying.  We are supposed to be impartial.  Putting GRCT in the lead is absolutely not. Springee (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A "lead-in"...not "in the lead". DN (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't had a chance to post a longer reply but the short version is do we have any sources that show The GOP as a whole is actually referencing the GRCT? I've seen a number of sources that say "politician X said something that is like the GRCT" or a reporter brings up the GRCT but in the cases I've seen it's the media that draws the parallel.  Additionally, I've found at least a few sources that note that noting a demographic change isn't what makes it the GRCT.  It's tying that change to a cabal doing this for racist reasons.  Do we have examples of politicians doing that?  It also appears that most of the media discussion of this topic started after a mass shooting manifesto was published.  It's not clear that GOP politicians, especially those at the national level are the source of the GOP support claims. (Apologies for any typos, this is a phone entry) Springee (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cortador, not liking the answer isn't the same as not receiving an answer. Springee (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You never gave an answer. Cortador (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Sounds like a reasonable compromise for well-sourced material that is clearly WP:DUE. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  06:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we have any evidence that this author is considered to be a leader in his field of research? The book has been cited 1 time per Google Scholar .  That hardly establishes it as a weighty volume. Springee (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't require the author to be a "leader in his field of research". This is ahoop you made up. Cortador (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I support this as well. I'll go through the sources DN provided an see which ones are best-suited. Cortador (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added some excerpts for everyone to see. DN (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Darknipples Using the list you kindly provided, I'd say that these sources are best to back up statements I think should be included in the articles:
 * 1. Trump's election has strengthened the GOP's far right faction: 4,19,33
 * 2. The party's far-right (former) fringe is becoming increasingly established: 5,8,12,20,31
 * 3. GRCT is promoted by an increasing number of GOP officials and members. This could also be included in another part of the article: 6,8,11,23,25,28,34
 * 4. There is opposition to the party's shift towards the right fringe from elements within the GOP: 9,10,21.36
 * 5. Parts of the GOP do not share the views of far-righters or white nationalists, but do not oppose them either: 19,20
 * There are a lot of sources backing the mainstreaming of the GRCT in the GOP. I think this should be in a separate section, as justified by the amount of material. Cortador (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. Seems reasonable.
 * 2. I would include this as a generally attributed opinion.
 * 3. I oppose this. The long reply is something I'm working on as well as a reply to many of the sources.  The short version is almost all GRCT accusations are made when the accuser conflates the long standing, uncontroversial view that Democrats benefit from open immigration policies, with the racist idea that the intent is to replace white people etc.  The sources I've reviewed don't show that the GOP examples actually claim the "replace white people" etc parts of the GRCT.  Instead the typical line is that what the GOP said is similar to, or echos etc the GRCT.  Some of the sources make it clear that the GRCT has to have this racist element and not all people understand what all is included.  In this regard it's similar to Cultural Marxism where some who use the term aren't intending the racist historical aspects.
 * 4. Seems reasonable.
 * 5. This might need some detailed review of the sources.
 * Note that so much of this is political commentary/writer's assessment/opinions. As such it should be presented not as historical fact but as contemporary claims. Springee (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree attributions may be needed, but something I haven't found are dissenting views (from authoritative figures such as academics) that GRCT is not promoted by an increasing number of GOP officials or becoming a more mainstream view of the GOP. Since you oppose this, please provide some sources that show this. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "uncontroversial view that Democrats benefit from open immigration policies" Why is that "uncontroversial" or somehow the mainstream consensus? What sources show that Democrat immigration policies have benefited them politically? There is anti-immigrant sentiment on the left as well, as far as I'm aware. DN (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is mainstream consensus or not....but the sources are numerous on this issue: "Some political commentators even see an inevitable demise of the GOP in the long-run, as first-generation immigrants become more numerous and vote for the Democrats. In our paper, we confirm this prediction by showing that, on average, immigration to the US has a significant and negative impact on the Republican vote share. See also:, , Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What does any of this have to do with GOP politicians promoting the GRCT? Cortador (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I wasn't addressing that...I was responding to DN's question "What sources show that Democrat immigration policies have benefited them politically?"Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They weren't talking about that, I went a bit off topic, apologies. DN (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Back to the subject of GRCT, I see the importance of discerning GOP talking points that focus on "replacement" rather than "demographic changes"...The scholarly consensus seems to point towards language being used by the "mainstream" GOP in the sense that the Far-Right, ie Trump's base, has essentially taken control of the party to a degree in their view, at least for the time being. I'm not sure I agree with them, but my opinion on that is seemingly irrelevant.
 * Rja13ww33, I appreciate the sources, thank you. As you stated, there is data that suggests immigration might be bad for the GOP in the long run, but issue has also helped GOP, Trump possibly being a prime example. Not that you have implied this, it's just that the idea that naturalized immigrants are some kind of monolith, that will always vote Democrat seems about as accurate as saying all Far Right Republicans are white supremacists.
 * "Some political commentators even see an inevitable demise of the GOP in the long-run, as first-generation immigrants become more numerous and vote for the Democrats." - Such as who? Tucker Carlson? Who they are talking about, and what exactly they are saying, seems pretty important in this context, since Carlson was mentioned multiple times as being a primary proponent of GRCT.
 * CEPR "Immigration is an important election issue that often benefits right-wing political parties."
 * "In the US, the media and political analysts have focused mainly on the direct effect, pointing out the potential adverse impact that migrants can have on the electoral success of the Republican Party, as immigrants seem more likely to vote for the Democratic Party." - AFAIK Immigrants can't vote until they become naturalized, this process typically takes over a year. FWIW the Center for Economic and Policy Research seems to be a left leaning think tank.
 * "The political returns of making undocumented immigration a salient issue, however, may be limited. According to our calculations the non-citizen immigrant share is high enough to help Republican votes only in a handful of states."
 * Polling data I have no doubt that immigrants are viewed more favorably on the left than on the right, but I'm looking for something in terms of the political benefits. Correct me if I'm off base, but the subject of immigration policy seems much more of a motivation for voter turn out on the right.
 * Jstor "Alternatively, prior political interests and experiences may be transferable to life in America, actually facilitating incorporation into the American party system. For example, Bruce Cain, Roderick Kiewiet, and Carole Uhlaner (1991) find that refugees from formerly communist nations wound up predominantly as Republicans, attracted to that party as more vigorously anticommunist than the Democrats." - "Historical data shows that Trump tends to perform better with Latino voters during economic stress." The Guardian "Republican front-runner Donald Trump appears to be gaining significant ground against President Joe Biden among Latino voters, according to new CNBC survey data." CNBC
 * NBER "The impact of immigration on Republican votes in the House is negative when the share of naturalized migrants in the voting population increases. Yet, it can be positive when the share of non-citizen migrants out of the population goes up and the size of migration makes it a salient policy issue in voters' minds."
 * DN (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If we got off-topic than I suggest we drop it. I wasn't giving sources/trying to comment on the GRCT in my reply. Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. DN (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as off topic. Many of the sources that accuse the GOP of pushing/promoting/etc the GRCT either are offering opinions on what they think the GOP member is saying or they fail to explain why what the GOP member is saying is different than the long standing claims (widely supported) regarding the Democrats being open on immigration because it favors the Democrats over the long term.  If we are going to include this as "true" vs an attributed claim then it's important to explain why the current version is different than the claims from years back.  Note, I've been looking this material up but it takes a while.  It's easy to do an inclusive keyword search but much harder to find the disputing sources as most of the GRCT claims started after a shooting/manifesto in 2022. Springee (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We could save time by simply referring to the currently existing article, which has this context currently in WP:WIKIVOICE. There seems to be quite a few more references there, which would seem to easily apply to this debate, but if you want to explore it further by all means take your time. Otherwise, I'm fine with finding some version of this that we can all agree on...
 * "The theory has received a strong amount of support in many sectors of the Republican Party. According to David Smith "Two in three Republicans agree with the “great replacement” theory". As a result, it has become a major issue of political debate."
 * DN (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Almost none of the sources I mentioned are opinion pieces, and no claim is backed up solely by option pieces. Read the source properly before make claims like this.
 * Your opposition to including GOP support for GRCT in the article is soley based on 1) trying to frame reliable sources as "accusations" i.e. pretending that they aren't reliable and/or opinionated as well as 2) original rearch that attempts to equate GOP support for GRCT and the Dems supposedly benefiting politically from immigration. Cortador (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would like to reiterate that the majority of any existing "political commentary/writer's assessment/opinions" from the citations comes from an academic, and or, scholarly viewpoint, as is Feagin's. So much so, that this may be the mainstream view from authorities on the subject. DN (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Absent you saying which sources are yours I can't say if you are correct or incorrect regarding opinions. However, looking at the long list above, many of the media articles are examples of commentators/writers offering their opinions.  They aren't reporting the facts/claims presented by others.  Instead they are offering their own takes on a subject.  That means it's opinion (even if not an OpEd per RS). WP:NEWSORG notes that such organizations publish a mix of opinion and fact.  While we by default treat articles marked as "opinion" or "oped" as such, but we also need to be aware when the author's own opinion/commentary is mixed into regular reporting.  I've posted a NYT article from I think 2016 on this but I don't have the link at hand.  Again, I'm working on a more complete reply to your concerns but in reply to the numbers: 1. When the source makes a claim but either doesn't present evidence or the evidence doesn't inherently support the claim (ie the same behavior in the past would be treated the same way and the evidence supports all aspects that are said to be required for the GRCT to be true (ie the racist "replace the whites" part vs just change voting patterns etc).  2.  OR is specifically allowed/encouraged when making editorial choices like this. Additionally, we do have strong RS that say the Democrats benefit politically from immigration.  As was shown above, that isn't OR. Springee (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the source I specifically listened.
 * Reliable sources don't need to "present evidence". They are the evidence. If you dismiss statements from RS became you think they don't fit what you think constitutes GRCT, you are again doing OR.
 * Equating Dems benefiting electorally from immigration with GOP promotion of GRCT without presenting sufficient sourcing to support this is not an "editorial choice". It's an attempt at bothsiding.
 * Based on what you have written above, I question your ability to assess sources. Cortador (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please avoid such comments on editors. As was noted, news media often mix facts and analysis/opinion in articles we have to be careful about using the opinions vs the facts. If the RS can't present evidence for their claim then we need to be careful about giving much if any weight to the claim. Given how many sources have been mentioned would you kindly link to yours again so I can speak to it directly? Springee (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, we do not. If, say, a RS such as AP releases an article that states "Half of GOP voters believe in GRCT", they don't need "present evidence for their claim". Wikipedia doesn't review RS in this fashion, and doing so would in fact undermine the way it works. You are, at best, trying to moddy the waters by making blanket statements about the reliability of news media, including ones considered reliable here, and at worst, have a fundamental lack of understanding how sourcing on Wikipedia works.
 * I have listed the sources above. Cortador (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've seen some of the surveys used to support claims like "half the GOP voters". Many also note that a large percentage of Democrat voters believe the same thing.  In such a case both stats should be included.  In the case of one of the surveys the question asked helps explain the result.  The question wasn't "do you believe a cabal of Jewish elites are doing X".  Instead it's asked in a way that someone who believes the non-conspiratorial aspect (ie Democrats support open immigration because they politically benefit from it).  This is why this whole topic is difficult to parse.  There is a strong core of truth that aligns with the conspiracy.  When someone is asked the question how do we decide what they are thinking about?  Presenting the GRCT without presenting the historically accepted views is misleading.  To use your analogy, the waters are muddied by those who don't note the difference. Springee (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the article about the Republican Party. We don't need bothsidism; if you want to mention that Dems also believe in GRCT, feel free to add it to the articles about the Democratic Party or Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the United States. The topic isn't difficult to parse at all; we have plethora of good sources about, just not ones that link Democrats benefiting electorally from immigration and GRCT, which you are trying to inject here.
 * And, once more, if you think that reporting on GRCT should be rejected because you don't like how RS interpreted surveys, you are doing OR. Cortador (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please review the WP:OR page. OR only applies to claims made in the article space.  It doesn't apply to the talk page nor does it apply to discussions regarding weight, NPOV etc. Springee (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We are talking about content that is supposed to be included in the article here. Of course OR applies. Cortador (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:OR : "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Springee (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What that means is that you e.g. don't need in-line citations for statements made on talk pages. If you discuss content on the talk page that you wish to include in the article, OR obviously applies, or that content will never make it into the article. Cortador (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What content do you believe I'm proposing to add? Springee (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. Cortador (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, what content do you think I'm proposing to add to the article? Springee (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The equation of Democrats benefiting from immigration electrically with GOP support for GRCT, which is OR. You advocated for that above. Cortador (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Back to a more productive line of discussion, I think we could shorten the Feagin quote a bit further...

From...
 * "Indeed, these politically and racially extremist Republicans have often been backed or featured in the conservative talk radio and television commentary programs. This intentional, and frequently profitable, political polarization has resulted in the near extinction of moderate Republicans and has brought about legislative paralysis or arch-conservative legislative domination at numerous local, state, and federal government levels of the past few decades." - Joe Feagin

To...

DN (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * According to sociologist Joe Feagin, increased media attention and political polarization by racially extremist Republicans has taken focus away from more moderate views and increased the political power of the far right at numerous government levels in the past few decades.


 * I think that is a better take. It preserves impartiality and while it may be possible to claim things are/aren't racist, there is no doubt that the influence of the right-wing of the party has increased. Springee (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So, any more objections to adding this version in? At that point I think we can remove the banner and continue forward discussing the other additions without it. It doesn't seem to be attracting any more participants to this discussion. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The suggested phrasing misrepresents the source. He is talking about radio and television using the so-called "extremists" to increase their own profits. And "moderate" Republicans are not out of focus in his view, they are near extinct. Indicating that the "moderates" are not a sizeable part of the party's supporters. Dimadick (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dimadick where does it say that? DN (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "the near extinction of moderate Republicans" Dimadick (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm open to other interpretations, would you mind restructuring it in the way you think it should read? Cheers. DN (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this any closer?
 * "According to sociologist Joe Feagin, the increased media attention to political polarization by racially extremist Republicans has perpetuated the near extinction of moderate Republicans at numerous government levels in the past few decades."
 * DN (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Jan 6th
I propose we make a short mention of J6 in the Far Right section, in regard to their involvement in the Jan 6th attack. There are already some sources in the article's Trump section, but I haven't looked to see whether they mention any specifics on the Far-Right's involvement. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This citation from AP News seems sufficient and is also prominent at the J6 article in the section regarding Participants, groups, and criminal charges "The insurrectionist mob that showed up at the president’s behest and stormed the U.S. Capitol was overwhelmingly made up of longtime Trump supporters, including Republican Party officials, GOP political donors, far-right militants, white supremacists, members of the military and adherents of the QAnon myth that the government is secretly controlled by a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophile cannibal".

I propose condensing it down to..."The insurrectionist mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol was overwhelmingly made up of Trump supporters, including far-right militants."

DN (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable in principle. I would remove "insurrectionist" and just say mob or similar.  While insurrection gets thrown around a lot it's not all sources call it that and even our article on the topic notes that people have struggled to find the correct term and does not call in an insurrection except in quotes. Springee (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That would make sense if we weren't describing the "militia" of far right supporters, but let's clarify that these particular individuals were convicted of seditious conspiracy. So in this case, I think it's worth debating whether the term "insurrectionists" applies. DN (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Republican polling leader Donald Trump observed the third anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by glorifying people charged in the riot, repeating baseless claims that left-wing or government interlopers caused the breach, and attempting to turn the term “insurrection” against his political opponents.
 * “He’s now directly saying that violence and criminality is okay if it’s in service of my power,” said Michael K. Miller, a political science professor at George Washington University who studies democracy and autocratic elections. “Once you endorse violence in rejecting electoral outcomes, you’ve turned away from democracy, it’s really that simple. Having a large fraction of the population with that attitude is very dangerous.” WaPo. DN (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Cortador (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If Springee would be happier with a version without the term insurrectionists, I would propose this as a possible alternative...
 * "The overwhelming presence of Trump supporters during the January 6 United States Capitol attack included far-right militants and extremists, some of which were later convicted of | seditious conspiracy"
 * DN (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would leave out the seditious conspiracy bit. That represents, I think 4 of the total number of prosecutions and in the case of at least one, what's his proud boy name, the person didn't actually go into the building at all.  More importantly, unless those are specifically tied to GOP leaders it's probably best to stick with the rest of the sentence as it probably applies to many who were not charged but were present. Springee (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, to simplify and save time, I propose we simply reflect the mention from the J6 article that says..."A significant number of participants in the attack were linked to far-right extremist groups or conspiratorial movements."...Short and to the point.
 * More than 1,200 persons have been charged with federal crimes arising from the attack., 728 defendants had pleaded guilty, while another 166 defendants had been convicted at trial; a total of 745 defendants have been sentenced.  A significant number of participants in the attack were linked to far-right extremist groups or conspiratorial movements, including the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and Three Percenters. Numerous plotters were convicted of seditious conspiracy, including Oath Keepers and Proud Boys members; the longest sentence to date was given to then-Proud Boy chairman Enrique Tarrio, who was sentenced to 22 years' imprisonment.
 * DN (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC) DN (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think your propose sentence is good but perhaps with removal of "significant". It's a non-clear, subjective term.  Just saying "a number" would be sufficient for the information in question. Springee (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What is "subjective" about it? These are facts based on the consensus of reliable sources. I suppose we could mention the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters. DN (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, the term "significant" is the most accurate or "clear" way to describe this far-right event according to the consensus of RS, not to mention it is in the lead of the J6 article. Besides, we wouldn't want to mislead readers into thinking this attack was primarily made up of these moderates or extremist groups (although extremists may still fall under the umbrella of FR from what I can tell). If you still feel it is UNDUE for the far-right section, we can take it to WP:NPOVN, unless you think an RfC is prudent. DN (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the problem with "significant" is it's not a well defined term. Significant with respect to what?  One might be significant or all but one.  That leaves it to the reader to decide.  If there is a clear number (106 for example) then that is that.  It's clear that the number linked is more than zero but presumably less than 100% charged.  As this is an encyclopedic entry I think the more factual statement is generally better.  I will say, if this is the extent of the disagreement then we have made good progress. Springee (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The term seems to refer to the amount or presence of far-right participants, as a "majority". Simply saying a "number" could be OR in this respect. DN (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can presume that. Majority would mean over 50%.  Do the sources say that?  Conversely, "significant" would be context dependent. In a statical context significant might be based on a 95% confidence interval.  I'm not sure how a "significant number" is not OR while a "number" would be. Springee (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you really think the majority of those that attacked the capitol were "moderates"? We know that the extremists still fall into the category of far-right. Yes, that is what the consensus of sources say, I've read them, and if you haven't read them I think you should think twice before objecting. This is well documented. DN (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you would prefer to say a "majority" or something along those lines, that's fine too. DN (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify further, using the Far-right politics article as a source for reference material, in the Modern Debates section under Terminology, Cas Mudde states...
 * "Within the broader family of the far right, the extreme right is revolutionary, opposing popular sovereignty and majority rule, and sometimes supporting violence, whereas the radical right is reformist, accepting free elections, but opposing fundamental elements of liberal democracy such as minority rights, rule of law, or separation of powers."
 * So, while I would agree that most alleged Capitol rioters were unconnected to "extremist groups", they still attacked the building. From the J6 article...
 * "More than 2,000 rioters entered the building, many of whom vandalized and looted parts of the building, including the offices of then House speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress."
 * DN (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think my original suggestion was still on my mind during my last response, so let's try a new version that includes both of our suggestions in a way that isn't contradictory to sources...
 * "The January 6 United States Capitol attack included significant participation by far-right Trump supporters including a number of militant extremists who led the initial attack."

Citations DN (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * J1 NYT "It is difficult to say exactly how deep and durable the links are between the American far right and its European counterparts. But officials are increasingly concerned about a web of diffuse international links and worry that the networks, already emboldened in the Trump era, have become more determined since Jan. 6. A recent report commissioned by the German foreign ministry describes “a new leaderless transnational apocalyptically minded, violent far-right extremist movement” that has emerged over the past decade. Extremists are animated by the same conspiracy theories and narratives of “white genocide” and “the great replacement” of European populations by immigrants, the report concluded. They roam the same online spaces and also meet in person at far-right music festivals, mixed martial arts events and far-right rallies." (see Active Club Network)


 * I'm not claiming they were moderates. Looking at your recent sentence I think that works better. While I still have concern regarding what is "significant" and to whom, I think it's far easier to say that "significant participation by far-right Trump supporters" vs the earlier version which claimed that a significant number of the participants were linked to various far-right extremist groups.  Politically, I suspect most of the people who went in were on the hard right side of politics even while suspecting the majority were not associated with extremist groups (or any particular group).  One final part, do the sources support "led the initial attack"?  When sources say there isn't clear evidence of a coordinated plan it seems odd to suggest someone/group "led the initial attack."  Perhaps "involved in the attack" as it's clearly true even if they weren't the first to start the event (if sources say they were first then disregard this). Springee (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

John Birch Society
Currently this section states that...


 * "The Republican Party's far-right faction emerged as a result of entrenchment and increased partisanship within the party since 2010, fueled by the rise of the Tea Party movement, which has also been described as far-right."

There seems to be a small but important discrepancy here in that it fails to mention JBS movement which peaked in the 1970's well before the Tea Party movement. The connections between JBS and the Tea Party have been pointed out by scholars and reliable sources... According to the bottom third paragraph in the lead on the John Birch Society page...

In the 2010s and 2020s, several observers and commentators argued that, while the organization's influence peaked in the 1970s, Bircherism and its legacy of conspiracy theories began making a resurgence in the mid-2010s, and had become the dominant strain in the conservative movement. In particular, they argued that the JBS and its beliefs shaped the Republican Party, the Trump administration, and the broader conservative movement. (Edward H. Miller is an associate teaching professor at Northeastern) (Professor Matt Dallek is a political historian)

In the JBS section Influence on conservatism


 * "The historian D. J. Mulloy wrote in 2014 that the JBS has served as "a kind of bridge" between the Old Right (including the McCarthyites) of the 1940s–50s, the New Right of the 1970s–80s, and the Tea Party movement right of the 21st century.

A simple correction might be something along these lines...


 * "While the influence of Bircherism peaked in the 1970s, the Republican Party's far-right faction started to emerge in 2010 as a result of entrenchment and increased partisanship. That same year, the JBS co-sponsored the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), ending its decades-long distance from the mainstream conservative movement. In January 2015 conservatives and Tea Party movement members in the GOP formed the House Freedom Caucus, with the aim of pushing the Republican leadership to the right.

Cheers DN (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

More citations. DN (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC) DN (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Conversation
 * WaPo Matt Dallek
 * WaPo via E. J. Dionne
 * The Hill Professor John Kenneth White, Ph.D. - Politics - Catholic University
 * Time Matthew Dalek PhD historian and professor of political management at George Washington University
 * The New Republic
 * David Barstow via NYT
 * Sean Wilentz via NPR
 * Harvard.edu "Several of these organizations, along with right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, have been bankrolled by a small number of far-right businessmen, most notably the libertarian Koch brothers, sons of Fred Koch, a founding member of the John Birch Society. (p 28-29)
 * John Cassidy (journalist) via The New Yorker
 * Thomas Mallon via The New Yorker
 * David Leonhardt "In the mid-20th century, tens of thousands of Americans joined the John Birch Society, a far-right group that claimed Dwight Eisenhower was a secret Communist. Today, however, falsehoods can spread much more easily, through social media and a fractured news environment. In the 1950s, no major television network spread the lies about Eisenhower. In recent years, the country’s most watched cable channel, Fox News, regularly promoted falsehoods about election results, Mr. Obama’s birthplace and other subjects."..."The roots of the modern election-denier movement stretch back to 2008. When Mr. Obama was running for president and after he won, some of his critics falsely claimed that his victory was illegitimate because he was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii. This movement became known as Birtherism, and Mr. Trump was among its proponents. By making the claims on Fox News and elsewhere, he helped transform himself from a reality television star into a political figure. When he ran for president himself in 2016, Mr. Trump made false claims about election fraud central to his campaign...In 2020, after Mr. Biden won, the | election lies became Mr. Trump’s dominant political message. His embrace of these lies was starkly different from the approach of past leaders from both parties. In the 1960s, Reagan and Barry Goldwater ultimately isolated the conspiracists of the John Birch Society..."Mr. Trump’s promotion of the falsehoods, by contrast, turned them into a central part of the Republican Party’s message. About two-thirds of Republican voters say that Mr. Biden did not win the 2020 election legitimately, according to polls. Among Republican candidates running for statewide office this year, 47 percent have refused to accept the 2020 result, according to a FiveThirtyEight analysis. Most Republican politicians who have confronted Mr. Trump, on the other hand, have since lost their jobs or soon will. Of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach him for his role in the Jan. 6 attack, for example, eight have since decided to retire or lost Republican primaries, including Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming."

DN (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. The article on the John Birch Society also has a number of sources - including academic ones - that describe the JBS as far right; we can use some of those as well. Cortador (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would add a couple points: a) JBS was very firmly under the thumb of Robert Welch (1899-1985)--he imposed an ideology and his refusal to allow local units to act without his permission meant they did very little acting. The influence on local affairs was small. b) Robert Welch was a product of the 1930s--esp the America First movement. I think 90% of ideas were in place by 1940 or so--see the excellent biography by Edward Miller, A Conspiratorial Life: Robert Welch, the John Birch Society, and the Revolution of American Conservatism (U  of Chicago Press 2021).. p 69ff argues that key influences on Welch = John T. Flynn (1882-1964), Garet Garrett (1878-1954) and Clarence Manion (1896-1979), whose ideas were shaped in 1920s. That's when fear of Communism became a main theme on the far right. So I would argue JBS and  Welch's ideas =  a product of 1920s and 1930s  Rjensen (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rjensen That is a very insightful point. Well done. DN (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks--IN 1919 the Red Scare was in full force--Welch was a student at Harvard Law School and was writing newspaper commentary. Miller says his conservative views were already very strong--so I think 1919 pretty well dates his main ideas. By 1960 The JBS was a discussion club, based on the materials Welch was disseminating from national HQ--members were buying and discussing books on current affairs as selected by Welch. No other right wing organization I know of was like this--which casts doubt on the argument that Tea Party etc somehow copied JBS. Rjensen (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that any historians said they copied JBS, only that some, like Dalek, said there were similarities such as the propensity for gossip, conspiracies etc... DN (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)