Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 30

"nationalists, who tend to sympathize with Palestine"
Do they though? I highly doubt it. After all, the same paragraph cites Pat Buchanan as the biggest example of a "nationalist republican", and you can go read his article and see the man has a long history of antisemitism. So, what am I saying here? That declining GOP support for Israel does not come from "sympathy for Palestinians", that is RIDICULOUS, it comes from the influence of antisemitic conspiracy theorists like Buchanan, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, etc. I mean, let's not forget Trump dined with Nick Fuentes...

In conclusion, that paragraph should really mention that, at least mention that MAYBE the decline in support of Israel has something to do with the documented rise in antisemitism in America in the past few years.

Oh, one last thing. The part of the article I've been discussing focuses too much on some random comments made by Trump about Israel to doubt his support for it. That's stupid. Trump says A LOT of things and let's be real here, he doesn't really mean most of what he says, he is not a very honest guy. Let's not judge Trump for what he says, let's judge him for what he does, what he did as president. He was the most pro-Israel president America ever had, certainly a lot more than Obama and Biden. When it comes to the Iran nuclear deal, the Golan Heights and his ridiculously one-sided peace plan, Trump trumps every other president. What Trump says about Netanyahu is clearly just interpersonal drama, as is usual with Trump. Bibi recognized Biden's election, that made Trump mad, end of story. That doesn't hold a candle to Obama's fight with Netanyahu, which was actually over policy, the Iran deal. Guyermou (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * What you doubt doesn't matter - what reliable sources state does. If you think that the source doesn't represent all relevant viewpoints on the topic, feel free to cite additional sources regarding that. Cortador (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support changing the wording on such statements. The Republican Party has never supported Palestine over Israel, but has sometimes supported non-interventionism and isolationism. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Remove claim that the party supports laissez-faire economics and deregulation and add citations for other policy claims
The article claims that "the party supports laissez-faire economics, deregulation, and increased military spending while opposing labor unions, universal health care and tuition-free higher education" without citation. I think this is incorrect with regard to laissez-faire economics and deregulation, and requires citations regarding the other policies. I propose removing laissez-faire economics and deregulation first and then looking for citations for the party's support for increased military spending, opposition to labor unions, universal health care and tuition-free higher education. 81.234.111.171 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 81.234.111.171, per MOS:LEADCITE, it is not always necessary to include citations in the lead section of an article. The fact that there is no source listed in the lead for the Republican positions on the various issues you mentioned is not necessarily a problem, so long as the body of the article contains sourced information supporting these statements.


 * I would discourage you from removing the references to laissez-faire economics and deregulation in the lead. The body of the article does contain a little bit of support for these assertions, although it tends to reference free markets rather than using the term "laissez-faire" term. Also, I believe that the GOP still largely supports these ideas. I will try to find some more sources indicating the GOP's position on these issues.


 * I have removed the mention of tuition-free higher education, which has no basis anywhere in the article and which I do not believe is a major Republican agenda item.


 * There is nothing in the article body supporting the claim that the GOP stands for increased military spending. I am not sure whether it's a better idea to find sources for that statement, to remove it, or to change it to say that the GOP supports a strong national defense.


 * The body of the article does mention GOP opposition to unions and to universal health care, but this information could be better sourced than it is. MonMothma (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I am pulling the information on increased military spending out of the lead. There is no basis in the article body for it and it is included in a sentence about economic issues; I don't think it belongs there. MonMothma (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 81.234.111.171, I take back one piece of what I wrote earlier. I have been looking around for sources for the language about the GOP supporting laissez-faire/free-market economics and deregulation. I'm not finding much (at least not much that is current). I have gone ahead and removed those two statements from the lead, which is what you originally called for. The larger problem I am running into is that there has been, and continues to be, a significant shift in the party's ideology since a certain orange someone came down the escalator; the result is that I'm finding a bunch of sources that say "Republicans used to stand for x, y, and z, but now...", etc. MonMothma (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The GOP perspective on unions seems nuanced. See and, for example. I have pulled the statement about union opposition out of the lead. MonMothma (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Republicans have taken a more favorable view of labor unions in recent years, but that hasn’t stopped the party from attacking unionized teachers at the recent GOP presidential debate, with one candidate vowing to “break the back” of the teachers’ unions."
 * "But several leading GOP presidential candidates — like Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley — have criticized union influence, a reflection of the predominant Republican view."
 * These citations are not evidence the GOP no longer opposes unions. I am reverting back to the longstanding version of the lead until we find consensus with citations that are more conclusive. DN (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I added deregulation to the lead. That is mentioned several times in the lead. Cortador (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Cortador, it is mentioned, but I see only one source supporting it in the entire article. MonMothma (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The claim is supported by a fairly recent academic source. That is sufficient. Cortador (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * User:Darknipples, as I stated above, the Roll Call source does indicate that the Republican position on unions is nuanced. Also (and more importantly), I see no sources cited anywhere in the article in support of the assertion that the GOP opposes unions. MonMothma (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This might be OK in a different part of the article, but I disagree that it is worthy of the lead. The GOP has a long history of generally opposing unions, most notably since Reagan ended the PATCO strike in the 1980's. News reports aside, the expert and academic consensus seems to also say that while some GOP party members may court union leaders from time to time, GOP legislation has a history of consistently undermining union power with right-to-work laws being a prime example.


 * Since you mentioned this information seems to be missing in the body, I have added a number of RS with context.


 * David Leonhardt "Many Republican officials treat organized labor as their political enemy. When Republicans gain power in a state capital, they often try to pass “right to work” laws meant to shrink unions. And these laws have their intended effect: They reduce the number of workers who belong to unions, reduce Democrats’ share of the vote in elections and reduce the number of working-class candidates who run for office, academic research has found. NYT March 2023
 * “Right to work” is the name for a policy designed to take away rights from working people. Backers of right to work laws claim that these laws protect workers against being forced to join a union. The reality is that federal law already makes it illegal to force someone to join a union. The real purpose of right to work laws is to tilt the balance toward big corporations and further rig the system at the expense of working families. These laws make it harder for working people to form unions and collectively bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions." (According to) AFLCIO on RTW "Donald Trump told us in 2016 he would stand with workers. He lied. The difference now is that he has a record he can’t hide from. And that record was catastrophic for workers. Former President Trump spent four years in office weakening unions and working people while pushing tax giveaways to the wealthiest among us. He stacked the courts with judges who want to roll back our rights on the job. He made us less safe at work. He gave big corporations free rein to lower wages and make it harder for workers to stand together in a union." (According to) AFLCIO Sept 2023
 * Steven Greenhouse "As politics grew more polarized over the past quarter-century, the Republican Party, pushed by wealthy donors like the Koch brothers, grew more anti-union (and more opposed to regulations on business). In state after state, Republicans have moved to hobble unions, especially through right-to-work laws, enacted in recent years in Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, West Virginia and Wisconsin." "In recent decades, Republicans in Congress have opposed not just pro-union measures, but many pro-worker ones." "Trump invited construction union leaders to the White House, but he utterly failed on delivering what they wanted most: his promised $1 trillion infrastructure plan that would have created hundreds of thousands of construction jobs. Infuriating union leaders and many workers, the Trump administration has refused to adopt any regulations requiring employers to take specific steps to protect workers against Covid-19. Many labor experts say the Trump National Labor Relations Board has taken myriad steps to make it harder to unionize. Mr. Trump has tweeted out attacks against the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s president and several union presidents." "Most Republican voters support a higher minimum wage — referendums in red states like Missouri and Nebraska approved a higher minimum — but Republican lawmakers generally oppose such a move." NYT Sept 2020
 * Joseph A. McCartin "More than any other labor dispute of the past three decades, Reagan’s confrontation with the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, or Patco, undermined the bargaining power of American workers and their labor unions. It also polarized our politics in ways that prevent us from addressing the root of our economic troubles: the continuing stagnation of incomes despite rising corporate profits and worker productivity." "Reagan’s unprecedented dismissal of skilled strikers encouraged private employers to do likewise. By 2010, the number of workers participating in walkouts was less than 2 percent of what it had been when Reagan led the actors’ strike in 1952. Lacking the leverage that strikes once provided, unions have been unable to pressure employers to increase wages as productivity rises." "But the impact of the Patco strike on Reagan’s fellow Republicans has long since overshadowed his own professed beliefs regarding public sector unions. Over time the rightward-shifting Republican Party has come to view Reagan’s mass firings not as a focused effort to stop one union from breaking the law — as Reagan portrayed it — but rather as a blow against public sector unionism itself." NYT Aug 2011
 * "But the Republican Party today remains anti-union, especially when considering what General Dwight Eisenhower told the American Federation of Labor when he was running for president in 1952. Independent Jan 2024
 * After years of struggle, America’s labor unions enjoy greater public approval than at any time in more than 50 years. Yet even as the Republican party seeks to rebrand itself as the party of the working class, its lawmakers, by and large, remain as hostile as ever toward organized labor. It doesn’t look like that situation is about to change. With the midterm elections approaching, and many polls indicating that the Republicans will win control of the House, nearly all Republican lawmakers in Congress oppose proposals that would make it easier to unionize. One hundred and eleven Republican House members and 21 senators are co-sponsoring a bill that would weaken unions by letting workers in all 50 states opt out of paying any fees to the unions that represent them. And at a time when many young workers – among them, Starbucks workers, Apple store workers, museum workers, grad students – are flocking into unions, Republican lawmakers often deride unions as woke, leftwing and obsolete. The Guardian Oct 2022
 * So it should be no surprise that Republicans, who appear to stand a good chance of winning control of the House, are signaling that they plan to push bills and strategies to undermine labor’s political clout and its ability to grow. “Republicans are likely to pursue a version of what Samuel Gompers often said: ‘Reward your friends and punish your enemies,’ ” said Joseph McCartin, a labor historian at Georgetown. A Republican-led House or Senate is expected to be more eager than a Democratic-controlled one to approve free trade agreements that unions oppose, and to be more reluctant to enact stimulus plans that unions have supported, like the recent bill that gave states $26 billion to help save the jobs of teachers, police officers and other government employees. A Republican-controlled House or Senate would probably block a labor-backed bill that would give firefighters and police officers in every state the right to unionize. Professor McCartin said, “I suspect the Republicans will target these policies by trying to make the case that they waste taxpayer money by promoting higher wages on projects that taxpayers pay for.” NYT Nov 2010
 * John Cassidy (journalist) "Politics is politics, but the sight of senior Republicans posing as the true friends of the union workers is so outlandish as to be almost comical. From Trump on down, the G.O.P. has spent decades siding with employers and seeking to frustrate union efforts to organize workplaces and raise wages. Even as it has sought to rebrand itself as a workers’ party, the G.O.P.’s actions have made a mockery of this claim. New Yorker Sept 2023
 * National Bureau of Economic Research However, the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, better known as the Taft-Hartley Act, allowed states to introduce “right-to-work” laws under which covered workers cannot be legally required to pay union dues. These laws can create a “free-rider” problem in union membership, undermining unions’ financing and ability to organize workers. Some states passed right-to-work laws before 1980. Six additional states have adopted these provisions since 2001. In Right-to-Work Laws, Unionization, and Wage Setting (NBER Working Paper 30098), Nicole Fortin, Thomas Lemieux, and Neil Lloyd find that these laws significantly reduce unionization rates and wages. NBER
 * Cheers. DN (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * OK, Darknipples. I have just removed the inline tag I had placed in the lead, and I have added the following sentence to the article body: "The Republican Party is generally opposed to labor unions. "


 * Darknipples, do you think any of the other sources you found should be added to the first paragraph of the "Labor unions and the minimum wage" section? It still needs more sources. MonMothma (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not especially, just that they might be considered acceptable for consideration on those topics. I would do a search for commentary on the GOP by notable experts such as Melvyn Dubofsky, Nelson Lichtenstein, Herbert G. Gutman, David Montgomery, David Brody, and Alice Kessler-Harris. DN (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The party certainly supported deregulation of certain industries in the 1980s. But when has any Republican leader supported laissez-faire, freedom from "any form of economic interventionism (such as subsidies or regulations)"Dimadick (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Times states that the GOP support laissez-faire policies. BBC Bitesize states that they did this dating back to at least the Coolidge era. The NYT states that this was also their policy from the Regan era to the arrival of Trump, but that this is changing. The Economist agrees that now the GOP, or at least parts of it, reject laissez-faire economics, but traditional conservatives support it. Cortador (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Cortador, thank you for that information. I think it would be good to work that information into the article, to the extent that it isn't there already. The nuances in the GOP's position, together with the fact that the Trump-era GOP has shifted somewhat, reinforce my belief that there should not be a blanket statement--in the lead or anywhere else--that the GOP supports laissez-faire/free-market economics. MonMothma (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. I saw this coming after the COVID-19 pandemic started. I am under the impression that we will have to completely rewrite this article after the RNC this summer. Scorpions1325 (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support mentioning that the Republican Party is pro-business, generally opposes labor unions, and increasing military spending. It does best among White voters without a college degree (Trump won them 67-32 in 2020), which could explain why it generally opposes tuition free university and student loan forgiveness. Also the Republican Party is strongest in the Southern United States, a region that has always supported property owners over workers (i.e. pro-slaveholders, pro-landlords, and now pro-business). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for page protection added
I have added a WP:Request for page protection because of the ongoing edit war. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

In which order should the article and infobox list the party ideologies and factions?
Since this is apparently contentious: in which order should the GOP factions and ideologies be listed in the article and the infobox?

Tagging people involved in this and the previous the discussion: @BootsED @Darknipples @Springee @Completely Random Guy @The Four Deuces @JohnAdams1800 @EvergreenFir @Endwise Cortador (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not clear that Trumpism is even a legitimate faction vs a recent term of convince. Putting it on top, over things like conservative is absolutely giving it undue weight.  Certainly an experienced editor shouldn't need to be reverted several times to realize there isn't consensus for this change. Springee (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding Trumpism has consensus. Trumpism was never on top in the infobox - JohnAdams1800 moved it below conservatism and stated so in their edit summary. If you reverted the change because of that, you did so under a false premise. Cortador (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you point out where that consensus was established? I recall a discussion in the past where it was noted that Trumpism is simply a recent name/manifestation of populism.  At best as a recent named faction is shouldn't be considered the most prominent.  Additionally as a questionable long term faction, as opposed to say a populist faction, will this really be a true faction in 10 years? Springee (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Stay on topic. If you want to remove Trumpism as a faction, feel free to start another discussion regarding that. Cortador (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If a faction's inclusion is questionable it certainly isn't a stretch to think putting it in the most prominent location on the list would be questionable. Can you point to the talk page consensus you mentioned? Springee (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's the discussion I already linked to. Can you tell me when Trumpism was ever at the top of the list, the supposed reason for your revert? Cortador (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I see you pinged editors but I don't see that you have provided a link. Your question about list order doesn't make sense. It was moved from down list to the top.  I reverted that change.  You reverted my edit so clearly it was at the top of the list recently. Springee (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It was move below conservatism, which you can see if you look at the edit you reversed and if you read the edit summary. I also linked to the discussion in the edit summary. You should actually look at the edits and their summary before your revert them. Cortador (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I simply added them based on the order of how the factions were listed in the factions section. I put conservative on top for obvious reasons. If it is really contentious we can just do alphabetical order. BootsED (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would omit both fields. The purpose of the info-box is to provide concise unambiguous information. However, this cannot be done in these two cases.
 * Neither major U.S. party has an official ideology and both are categorized in comparative politics as "liberal" parties. Their disagreement is on the interpretation of liberal principles such as property rights, rather than disagreement over the principles themselves.
 * The only real formal faction in the party is the relatively small Liberty Caucus. Otherwise, there are shifting informal alliances over various policies. TFD (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What official factions or ideologies the party has doesn't matter - we should stick to what sources define as factions. Using an self-description should in fact be avoided entirely without pointing out that it is one. Cortador (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I support putting Trumpism at the top of the factions in the infobox because it is the dominant faction of the GOP, with conservatism as the dominant ideology. Trumpism has its own article, Donald Trump has been the GOP presidential nominee--presumptive for 2024--in 2016, 2020, and 2024, and the article states that "Trumpists are the dominant political faction of the GOP." (I didn't include the citations because many are tagged and just use their tagged name).
 * Trumpism is associated with ideologies such as right-wing populism, national conservatism, and protectionism (compare Trump's ideology on trade to his predecessors going back to Reagan) that began to feature prominently in the GOP after Trump won the nomination in 2016. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I support that as well. Trump has had the party in his grasp for almost a decade now, and has transformed it significantly. Should that change, we can revise the article, but as of now, there's no end in sight. Cortador (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources saying it's the dominant faction? Consider this source  describing the current (not long term or stable) fractions of the house GOP.  What could be called Trumpism in their report is the "Pro Trump insurgents" and are the loudest but not the biggest.  They are presented last on the list suggesting they are a vocal minority vs any sort of majority.  They have power because they are leveraging the thin party majority to get what they want. Springee (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for including me in the discussion! I'll be honest, I do think that Trumpism is extremely significant, as in he and his supporters within the party have remodeled the party from more of an establishment catch-all party, to a more anti-establishment populist party. Now whether Trumpism should be the first listed faction or last listed faction, to me I would say it should be listed last. My justification being it is the newest grouping/faction within the party. I am okay with wherever it is listed, as long as it IS listed. But I can't say I necessarily agree with it being the newest listing and automatically placed on top in prominence over the long preceding factions. Completely Random Guy (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be best to ask the community at WikiProject Infoboxes, and see what they suggest? I'm somewhat indifferent, but the MAGA movement is currently the faction most prevalently found among reliable sources to be redefining the modern day GOP. Right-libertarianism, Centrism, Christian right, Neoconservatism, all seem to be taking a back seat. That being said, I'm unaware of any standard info-box procedure as it relates to this question, aside from finding consensus. DN (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox consensus discussion to resolve editing dispute
What are the views for how to arrange the factions for the Republican Party in the infobox? There appears to be widespread support for keeping Conservatism (American) as the party's dominant ideology.

It appears the two main positions are:

A: Alphabetical order-- Centrism; Christian right; Neoconservatism; Right-libertarianism; Trumpism

B: Trumpism at the top, due to being widely described as the dominant faction of the party. The others in some other order, likely alphabetical--Centrism; Christian right; Neoconservatism; Right-libertarianism

Are there other proposals for the ordering, such as potentially including no factions in the infobox?

I personally support option B, for reasons stated in the prior discussion post. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I would go with none if that is the long term stable version of the article. If they are included then the long term factions first and the recent/newer ones later.  Do note that the 538 source I provided in the previous section doesn't support the view that "Trumpist" is the largest faction, only the loudest. Springee (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As many RS in the lead state, "As of 2024, Trumpists are the dominant faction within the GOP.". Unfortunately, it's not clear that which faction being the "largest" or "dominant" is the distinction that is what determines the order. The suggested order should provide stability to the article, and I believe that's what the info-box project community would suggest, but I could be wrong. DN (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They don't need to because nobody has claimed that Trumpists are the largest faction. Cortador (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Making it alphabetical seems the easiest and least troublesome solution. DN (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option A as it's the most neutral and will cause the least talk page bickering. I also worry option B runs afoul of WP:RECENTISM. — Czello (music) 07:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option A for reasons stated above by User:Czello. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Option A because it just makes more sense. It's also how we order the Democratic Party's factions. Completely Random Guy (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Political position
I feel like the position “right wing” on the infobox is a fair and unbiased position to give it especially since the source mentions center right and far right factions while saying it’s only factions and not the majority. but my question is will it stay? Because whenever positions are added it tends to be removed however I am in favor of keeping the political position in the infobox 2600:8801:1187:7F00:355E:943C:4E4A:C550 (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose because the Republican Party is a big-tent party. Most members of it can be described as having right wing political views, but it also has members with far-right views (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene) and centre-right views (i.e. governors Joe Lombardo and Phil Scott). Because the Party has officeholders in a wide variety of jurisdictions and positions, the party's position on the political spectrum is not uniform. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on your definition of big tent, ie, "a political party having members covering a broad spectrum of beliefs." What other beliefs take precedent over Trumpism in the current GOP? Which sources even still call it a "Big tent" party, currently? While I agree that's true of the past, lately though, not so much. Since Trump won in 2016 it's seemingly continued to become a party belonging to the MAGA movement, even despite his loss in 2020 the Trump family gained more control, specifically over the RNC.
 * 1. The Atlantic 2022
 * 2. The Hill 2022 by Glenn C. Altschuler
 * 3. NYT 2021 by Nicole Hemmer
 * Cheers... DN (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "What other beliefs take precedent over Trumpism in the current GOP?" I would argue that Creationism and anti-intellectualism have a wider support among the party members. Dimadick (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Are there any creationist or anti-intellectual factions according to citations? DN (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's already what the infobox states: the GOP is a right-wing party with centre-right and far-right elements. And as DN pointed out, if you want to remove the political position on the basis that the GOP is a big tent party whose position is too broad to be defined, you need RS that say so, and those need to outweigh sources that attribute specific positions to the party. Cortador (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Was there a talk page consensus for adding this to the page? It was added just 10 days ago and I don't see that it had a clear consensus for inclusion.  Why isn't this part of the Democrat page is a good question.  Additionally, why make the change now and why ignore/fail to notify participants in past discussions. Springee (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no specific requirement for additions to get prior approval. What the article on the Democrats does or doesn't have doesn't matter; whoever edits that article can decide that. Cortador (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct about prior approval. But once challenged we should show explicit approval.  Yes, what we do on the other topic does matter as the two should have some level of parallelism. Springee (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this. The current formatting for the infobox on this page is pretty much perfect — the GOP is undoubtedly a right-wing party with centre-right and far-right elements. This is backed up by numerous sources included in the article. For the Democrats, however, things seem to get a bit more murky. While scholars and commentators agree that the Democrats are, at the very least, not right-wing, there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus beyond that. Withholding information on this page simply because there isn't a consensus on the other page does nothing but disservice the reader. Loytra (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * When compared with other western democracies, the Democrats ARE right wing, but I know we'll never get that reality into Wikipedia. As for the Republicans, we have a party endorsing Donald Trump for President, so his political philosophy has to be a major part of the Republican Party political position. I cannot be simply ignored. We have a Trumpism article, where it is described as authoritarian, right-wing populism, national conservatism, neo-nationalism, and neo-fascism anti-immigrant, xenophobic, nativist, anti-minority groups, conspiracist, isolationist, Christian nationalist, protectionist, anti-feminist, and anti-LGBT. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually quite strongly disagree, at least with the first part. Right now, I'd argue the Democrats are a pretty firm centre-left party, with current Democratic lawmakers governing even to the left of similar international parties such as the Australian Labor Party or the German Social Democrats. With economically progressive bills such as the Build Back Better Act (which was endorsed by the Democratic establishment yet rejected by the party's two conservative Senators), the Biden admin's policies of student loan relief and taxing billionaires, and the party's overall strong endorsement of progressive social issues such as transgender rights, I don't think the idea that the Democrats are right-wing holds much water these days.


 * If I were to unilaterally write the Democrats' infobox (simply based on my original research), I'd probably put something like 'Center to center-left' with '(center-right to left-wing)' under a 'factions' tag.


 * I fully agree with your second point, however. Under Trump the GOP has most definitely endorsed an almost far-right agenda, with all the policies you listed now being main tenants of the party. Loytra (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think more of a consensus should be added on a political position in the infobox. Not listing a position has been consensus for as long as I can remember. But it doesn't seem like very many people voted on the issue. Completely Random Guy (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If there was a lot more disagreement I'd agree, but there doesn't seem to be. I really can't see how anyone would have valid disagreements about the GOP being a right-wing party, especially with the amount of citations given to support such a position. Listing a position (especially with how undisputable the party's is) greatly aids the reader, while withholding it for the sake of a vague "consensus" does nothing but harm the page.
 * This page is almost certainly the first place anyone wanting to access information about the GOP would visit, and knowing that the party is "right-wing" is perhaps the most basic and important factoid one should know. Loytra (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, I haven't seen many arguments against inclusion e.g. the GOP being a Big Tent party that can't be described as right-wing isn't backed up by sources, and whether or not then Democratic Party article states an ideology doesn't matter. Cortador (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In terms of stability, there will be much fewer users/editors complaining that the republican party article's political position is right wing...I can't recall the last time anyone came to this talk page complaining that this article wasn't reflective of RS saying the republican party was accepting or welcoming to "left wing" political positions...Not in years... DN (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To add to this, the article did include a comment for a long time about a supposed "longstanding consensus is not to include a political position" in the infobox. However, when I asked about that a while ago, nobody was able to determine when this alleged "longstanding consensus" was actually formed, and the prior discussions I could find on the topic were about adding a position. The assumption that there is no census for adding a position is either faulty, or it happened so long ago (15+) that I don't think we should cling to that. Cortador (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There's not a reason to add this, and frankly the note as it was was insufficient. Explaining the party is a conservative party with a bunch of factions is the best way to do this in a two-party system where both parties broadly represent the left and right, respectively. Toa Nidhiki05 06:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The United States is not the only two party system with parties that have a so-called "broad tent". I don't understand the American exceptionalism behind all this, when largely speaking the GOP is right-wing. Every party has factions but if said factions are small enough (i.e. the center-right in the GOP), it doesn't change the overall political position of the party. Aficionado538 (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Note claiming that there is "longstanding consensus" not to include a political position for the party
@ Toa Nidhiki05 You restored the note claiming that there was "longstanding consensus" not to include a political position for the party in the infobox. We recently had a discussion about that, and nobody was able to show were this alleged "longstanding consensus" was formed. In even more recent discussions, a number of users (Credmaster 20, Ray522, DN, Loytra, Monito rapido, Schestos, Aficionado538, two IP users, and myself) have supported the inclusion of a position. Even if there, at one point, had been a consensus not to include a position, which again, nobody has been able to demonstrate, that consensus is clearly no longer a present. If you claim that there is really no consensus, you need demonstrate that. Cortador (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that Wikipedia falls back to previous consensus when there is no new consensus reached. I think a lot of people are happy to let things linger, particularly on controversial topics.
 * I'd support a well thought out change here though. The reasons for the previous consensus are very weak imo. US parties should not get special treatment without a very compelling reason, and being "big tent" is not compelling to me. Carlp941 (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see the discussion where that consensus was supposedly formed. All we have is a single comment (which I removed months ago) with an unsubstantiated claim that there is such a consensus. Cortador (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of the Centrism Ideology
I think we should remove the centrism label, or relegate it to a "historical" subsection. The source linked is from 1996 - a nearly 30 year old source. Additionally, the source is bemoaning the demise of centrism in the Republicam Party.

Any sourced I've found do the same - noting the death of centrism in modern american politics.

https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1744&context=student_scholarship

''I find that, while the number of centrists has declined precipitously their ideology does not at least at the broadest level predict their effectiveness in passing legislation. Future research will dig deeper into the underlying question of when centrists are more or less effective, looking at particular Congresses and speakerships to analyze the extent to which centrists' declining numbers result in declining (or perhaps enhanced) effectiveness''

https://news.northeastern.edu/2023/06/05/four-party-system-us-politics-progressives-far-right/

For several decades now, political scientists have been carefully documenting the disappearance of the “political middle” among the ranks of both the Democratic and Republican parties in Congress.

https://news.virginia.edu/content/democrats-becoming-more-liberal-and-cohesive-party-gop-more-conservative

The middle ground of American politics is growing more difficult to find as the nation’s two major political parties organize around their ideologies and move further from the political center, according to a senior columnist with Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. Carlp941 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Centrism isn't an ideology, it's the midpoint of the political spectrum which itself isn't defined. TFD (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @The Four Deuces, then you're okay with me removing it? I think that's yet another strong reason to remove it. If it's not an ideology, and reliable sources say the centrist faction is dead - including the source referenced - i see no reason to keep it. Let me know if I am off base! Carlp941 (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree. TFD (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I added moderate conservatism but someone deleted it and added centrism again. Can i please request to restore my version. I also changed a few of the redundancies like faction history and added it in the main page Guotaian (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Moderate conservatism" is not a thing, at least in the context of American politics, and it's not what that source says, either. Please stop making major changes without explanation and then reverting without explanation. Your edits are actually breaking formatting on many of these pages, and straight-up importing content from other pages is generally frowned upon. Toa Nidhiki05 17:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? there is a wiki page for it and it makes up a large portion of the republican governance group. There is also a section for the united states in the Moderate conservatism page. Please look closely at the edits and tell what else is "wrong". Guotaian (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Moderate conservatism" is not a term used in American politics. Moderate Republicans are generally referred to as centrist, or referred to (somewhat confusingly and anachronistically) as "liberal Republicans". Introducing terms to this article that not only aren't what the sources say, but that aren't even used in American politics, is at minimum an WP:ENGVAR violation, and at most WP:Original research. Toa Nidhiki05 18:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Many also disagree with the use of centrist because it is not a political ideology. Also besides that is there anything else you disagree about? Guotaian (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly, what does " breaking formatting" mean because the page works as it should. Additionally, I am just using the democratic party page as a reference (where they just list all factions without history) and it makes it confusing for readers to read too much. Guotaian (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * On the Democratic Party page, your changes to headers actually removed those headers from the table of contents. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Which headers? can you please specify Guotaian (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about factions it is because the majority of democrats are liberals while only a minority are moderates/progressives. So it is meant to point out the majority faction (liberals) Guotaian (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This kind of editing is really disruptive. Please don't take agreement between two editors about a proposed edit as license to make major changes that are mostly tangently related. It erodes good faith and makes consensus harder, particularly on a page that covers a very contentious topic. I am proposing the removal of a single line under the ideology subhead in the infobox - I am not asking for the changes you are attempting to make. Carlp941 (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am new to wiki so i'm unfamiliar with the rules. I apologize for my misunderstanding. Guotaian (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also since you are planning to remove the centrist label, are you planning to remove the moderate faction below? Guotaian (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd contest removing centrism as a faction. The House Freedom Caucus - which gets a ton of weight in the article, undue I'd argue - has roughly the same number of members as the Republican Governance Group, which is the centrist grouping. Pretending this faction doesn't exist isn't helpful to readers. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I also Support keeping moderate conservatism and/or centrism. The Republican Party has state-level officeholders who can be considered centrist/moderate (i.e. Charlie Baker, Phil Scott, and Larry Hogan in the Northeast, and Joe Lombardo in Nevada) as mentioned in the article. They are still a faction, though shrinking over time. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can be on board with keeping it, but only if can we find a better source. A 30 year old source that bemoans this faction's demise surely isn't the best.
 * Give me a day or two and I'll try to find one! Carlp941 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not just list the Republican Governance Group as a faction of the party? TFD (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's some sources:
 * Centrist Republicans warn far-right tactics could backfire in government funding fight - NBC News: Uses centrist and center-right interchangeably
 * Scoop: House centrist groups eye bipartisan policy partnership - Axios: Uses center-right and center-left as synonyms for centrism
 * GOP centrists prepare to ‘flex our muscles’ - POLITICO: "centrist Republican Governance Group"; also mentioned 90-member strong Main Street Caucus
 * House GOP elects Blake Moore as vice chair, replacing Speaker Johnson - The Hill: "Moore is a second-term lawmaker who sits on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, as well as the House Budget Committee. He is also vice chair of the Republican Governance Group — formerly known as the Tuesday Group — a more centrist House GOP caucus."
 * Centrist Dems and McCarthy’s allies are in secret talks to strike a deal - POLITICO: Centrist GOP and Dems in same grouping.
 * Centrist Democrats Cling to Hope of Deals With Divided House GOP - Bloomberg: "Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah), a member of the both the centrist Republican Governance Group and the Problem Solvers Caucus"
 * Reps. Moore, Curtis join centrist GOP push for McCarthy speakership bid - Standard-Examiner: Refers to group as centrist
 * Republican feud over 'root canal' spending cuts raises US government shutdown risk - Reuters: "the 42-member centrist Republican Governance Group."

This was from a two-minute scan of the front page of Google for centrist Republicans. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 16:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * These are news sources - the current source is academic. I'd prefer an academic one to replace it, not what you found on a two minute google search. I'm in no rush! I'll dig in later and I'm hopeful I'll find something. Carlp941 (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's a more recent one from Brookings with some numbers backing up the centrist faction as an existing faction. Cool with me replacing the current source?
 * https://www.brookings.edu/articles/will-the-republican-party-return-to-normal/ Carlp941 (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Any summary sources? DN (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Should the GOP article only include the party's political position in its infobox if the article on the Democratic Party does as well?

 * The Democrat article doesn't have this information in it's box. Will you support adding it so the info box there as well as here? Springee (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If there's a consensus to include one in that article, sure. I don't really understand how that affects this one, though? Loytra (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would support it. DN (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As the GOP is the right-wing of US two party system I think adding this to both articles make sense or it should be off both. Otherwise I don't have a strong feeling beyond if there was a previous consensus the involved editors should be contacted. Springee (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * More specifically, the GOP encompasses the entire right of the spectrum, and the Democrats the entire left. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 00:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "the GOP encompasses the entire right of the spectrum" The concept of right-wing politics groups together Conservatism, Christian democracy, Classical liberalism, Nationalism, and Fascism. Does the GOP attract voters from all the right-wing ideologies? Dimadick (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dimadick currently, or for a specific time period? DN (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For the last decade or so. Else I would ask if did attract them in the past. Dimadick (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @, The Trump era of the GOP is somewhat of a turning point into new territory for the GOP, in some respects. It seems the two party system isn't necessarily just about attracting voters, it's also about complacency and compulsion IMO. How does a society of hundreds of millions manage to fit all their needs into 1 of 2 categories? [[User:Darknipples|DN (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand that argument. There's a clear position that the GOP holds (i.e. "right-wing"). As of now, I don't see that there's one for the Democrats. Why would that stop us from adding "right-wing" to the GOP article? Why withhold vital information to the reader just for the sake of parity? Loytra (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you mean by right-wing, which is the problem in deciding what would go into the field. Historically, the right was been associated with absolutism, fascism and dictatorship and no sane people actually self-identify as right-wing. So when I see someone described as right-wing today, I think of Meloni, Lepen, Orban and Bolsonaro. The Republican Party at least pays lip service to the U.S. constitution. TFD (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Democrat article talk page it seems that article also has debates about this.  ("same reasons as given in GOP talk. Both parties are too big and unique to give them labels for position. Furthermore, it does not get clear to me at all why, as the user above me does, one should adjust the position of American parties to European standards"),.  It seems this discussion comes up quite a bit and no one has ever come up with a good compromise.  Those against, rightly, argue that both parties cover quite a range of positions and thus it's not easy to narrow them down to a simple left-right.  However, I also get the idea that the Dems and Repubs are often referred to, even by themselves and on the left or right.  Personally I don't think the change is needed but I wouldn't oppose doing a simple "left-wing", "right-wing" so long as there is consensus that this should be consistent across the two articles and is based on the idea that the left and right reflect their relative position with respect to one another. Springee (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we should go one at a time and try to develop consensus in one page first. Carlp941 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The article on the Harlem Globetrotters basketball team currently has a list of all players with their height (Harlem Globetrotters), since height is significant to playing basketball. Now suppose we decided to add a field for shortness/tallness. Their heights range from 4'6" to 7'1" and they are on average significantly taller than the average population.
 * How can we agree how tall is tall or whether average means for basketball players or for the general population? We would rely on our subjective interpretations of the information already provided.
 * It's the same here. The info-box provides the party's ideology. We do not need to show where we believe those ideologies fit along the political spectrum.
 * TFD (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not about what "we" believe. It's about what reliable sources state. And reliable sources quite consistently state that the party is right-wing with center-right and far-right elements.


 * This comparison is unwarranted. To omit a political position based on your personal views that this information is "subjective" is original research. We go off what reliable sources say, not what you think. Loytra (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources use the terminology in different ways. For example, books about the Weimar Republic refer to the Christians democrats, liberals and social democrats as centrists, but their successor parties are described as right, center and left respectively. The same sources may use the terms differently depending on context. For example, David Cameron's conservatives could be described as center right, and the Lib Dems as center left, but together they formed a center-right coalition.
 * The terms are only meaningful when context is provided.
 * Note while countless books have been written about the Left and the far right, there are no books about the center right, the center left or the center. That's because those terms are ambiguous. TFD (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I really understand your point. What "context" are you talking about that changes things? How are the Democrats or Republicans not center-left or center-right "in context"?
 * And you cannot legitimately say that there "are no books about the center right, the center left or the center." That point in itself is just a bit ridiculous. Loytra (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Instead of providing an evidence free ad hominem argument, can you provide examples of books about the center right, the center left or the center? TFD (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone could say that both parties are centrist, that the Reps are the the right and the Dems the left, that the Dems are center-left, that their membership ranges from center to left. While all these statements are true, are use of them would depend on context. For example, if we were comparing U.S. politics to the Weimar Republic, we would say U.S. parties were centrist. If we were comparing it with the UK, we would say the two parties are the left and the right. If we were comparing the parties with political parties generally, we would center-left or center-right. TFD (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Loytra I tend to agree, but which sources provide the most authoritative evidence? DN (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This bit about "center-right" and "far-right" elements is fairly wrong too, because sources actually talk about centrist elements - not center-right ones - as the furthest extent of the party. On the flip side... the "far right" wing are not, say, literal nazis, any more than the far-left wing of the Democratic Party are communists. The parties themselves also have effectively no control over who can join, or who can run for office; in many states, non-party members can vote in primaries. Europe is not a valid comparison. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The "far-right" faction of the GOP aren't Nazis, but they are fascists. Fascism is a far-right ideology. Reliable sources describe the Trumpist faction as far-right. Therefore, a major faction of the GOP is far-right.
 * Loytra (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's an extremely bold claim, and one that is ultimately incorrect. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 12:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's it. I can take the first result on a Google books search for "the far right in europe" which is Far-right Politics in Europe" (Harvard University Press 2017) It provides a definition of the far right, its history and a list of far right parties, all well-sourced and written by experts. As an academic source, the authors are expected to report how well accepted their conclusions are. It's like using a biology textbook as a source that felix catus is a species of cat or that humans can be classified as primates.
 * There is nothing comparable in this case. TFD (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Darknipples what do you mean? Loytra (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean which sources are we using to define the political positions, and how authoritative are they. Since this is an opinion, it will help to gain consensus if it is an opinion that is proven to be shared by close to a majority of experts. DN (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See Radical right (United States), which is part of an article you recently edited. It begins, "Among academics and social scientists, there is disagreement over how right-wing political movement should be described, and no consensus over what the proper terminology should be exists." It is sourced and you can read more about the topic in two of the books used as sources for the article by Sara Diamond and Kaplan & Weinberg. TFD (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That article is about Radical right, and the section refers to the right-wing. Does it mention the GOP? DN (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We were discussing whether or not there is consensus in academic sources in the use of left-right terminology. As reliable sources point out, there is none at least for groups on the right.
 * Categorizing parties by ideology is straightforward. The Liberal Party of Canada is a liberal party, the Conservative Party of the UK is a conservative party, the Communist Party of the United States is a communist party. We even know that conservatives are to the right of liberals who in turn are to the right of communists. But there is no consensus about where specifically these ideologies fall along the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, but I don't see an answer to my question. DN (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't mention the GOP, and only refers to the radical right, then it shouldn't be used to make a case for omitting a political position for the Republican party. DN (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You wrote, "which sources are we using to define the political positions?" Why does a source that defines the political positions of right-wing, far right etc., have to mention the GOP? These terms should have the same meaning whether we are referring to the GOP or any other political group.
 * Note that I provided the source not as part of an argument that the political position should be omitted but in reply to your request for sources on what these terms mean. TFD (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I've no objection to including or excluding political positions, as long as both political parties-in-question are consistent with each other. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think the two articles should be connected. We cover things the way the sources do; if sources tend to describe the Republican party along the left-right axis more often than they do the Democratic party, then our articles need to reflect that, rather than putting our thumb on the scale and overriding the sources for the sake of WP:FALSEBALANCE. It's not a given that both political parties are equally defined by left-right politics, which means we can't simply set a requirement that they be treated the same way without regard for the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have evidence of this? Is there a particular reason and what is the context in your examples? Springee (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Evidence for what? TFD (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The American articles are odd balls that they excluded this easily sourced basic info. I think most understand its complicated....but no mention of any political comparison leaves our readership in the dark. Consider what the best way to inform our readers, a well sourced section about the many political scales can lead our readers to more reliable information then a search engine can.  It would be better to confront and explain problems. Don't leave our readers without any information on subjects of notability even if its hard to explain. Moxy 🍁 16:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No information is omitted. The article currently has the ideology of the party and major factions. That is far more useful than an arbitrary "political position". <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Currently the info-box lists the ideologies as majority Conservatism with factions: Centrism, Christian right, Libertarianism, Neoconservatism and Trumpism. Where we place the party in the political spectrum depends entirely on how we place these ideologies. If I am wrong, can you explain what additional information it provides? Is there any danger a reader might think they were a left-wing party? TFD (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. Because not all readers are going to read the entire article, and follow all the links. Not all readers come from an already strong knowledge base. Not all readers are American. I was once a teenager, trying to understand the politics of my country and why it was planning to send fellow Australians, and maybe me, to fight a war in Vietnam. This inevitably led me to want to understand the politics of the country we were following into that war. I started with zero knowledge, and it took me quite a while to get my head around the very different politics of that foreign country. Today, Wikipedia is a primary source of such information, on millions of topics, for readers all around the world. New readers will come to this article with very little basic knowledge. They won't read the entire article. They will look to the Infobox for summary information. I do that myself on new topics every day. If the Infobox avoids basic information, such as the party's raw political position, it is failing. This article needs to be as good as it can be. In deciding what that means, it's irrelevant what the article on the Democratic Party says. (Although it too should be made as good as it can be.) This isn't a competition between two parties in one country. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't believe an arbitrary "political position" is essential, especially when it relies on synthesizing sources. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 02:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> - You have positioned your comment as a response to mine. After the thought and effort I put into my comment, with thorough reasons behind my position, I find your comment both frustrating and very unhelpful. You seem to have ignored everything I wrote. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand you're frustrated with my response. However, you've not actually established why a listed "political position" is essential. The page already lists the party's ideology and factions. Do you genuinely, honestly believe someone could read that list and think "this is a left-wing party"? I don't think so. Clearly, there's a lot of contention about this - but it's impossible to be confused, in my opinion. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 03:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You either didn't properly read or didn't understand my comment. I wrote about the reader who is not already an aficionado in American politics. One who won't read long lists, and is looking for information in summary form. That list is NOT a summary. It probably doesn't belong in the Infobox in the first place. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Toa Nidhiki05 Are political positions only arbitrary for parties in the US, and the GOP in particular? Which sources are being synthesized and how, exactly? DN (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If as you say readers look to the info-box for information, it already says the party's main ideology is conservatism. What additional information is provided by saying where in the political spectrum it is?
 * I don't know how the political spectrum helps to analyze Australia's role in the Vietnam War. Both major parties supported the war, as did both parties in the U.S. It's not clear how one would describe their position in the spectrum.
 * The Vietnamese communists of course were left-wing, but that's by definition and doesn't help us understand the conflict. Labor could also be described as left-wing by definition even though they were much closer to the Liberals.
 * Note that liberals, conservatives and labour parties in most other countries did not support joining the war. TFD (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * None of that was my point. I figured things out back in the 60s. I don't need you to try to explain it to me now. To perhaps reinforce my point, one of Australia's two major parties is the Liberal Party. Now, are you clear where it sits on the political spectrum? HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. In Australia, the word "liberal" has a different meaning. Clicking on any of the links would elaborate on that, but the infobox also mentions conservatism, too. There's no real way to be confused. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 04:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A different meaning from the U.S. perhaps, but most Democrats and Republicans could easily fit into its two wings. What makes the Liberals different from other countries with liberal parties is that their only major opposition comes from the left, whereas most liberal parties have opponents on both sides. But even though some liberal parties may at times seem left-wing, when they have to choose, they almost always align with the right. TFD (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's why there is a box for "political ideology." The Liberal Party info-box says it is Liberalism (Australian), Conservatism, Liberal conservatism, Economic liberalism, with Factions: Pragmatism, Right-wing populism.
 * Can you explain why given the ideologies listed, what additional info the position in the political spectrum adds? Do you think anyone would confuse it with a left-wing party?
 * The info-box places it Centre-right to Right-wing. Someone else might place it far right to center left, since it has both right-wing populist and social liberal elements. It all depends on where Wikipedia editors place its constituent ideologies. TFD (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Adjusting factions in the lead
I'm wondering if Libertarianism and Christian Right actually should remain. The source for Christian Right is from 1981 - extremely outdated - and its not really a term used as much today. It might be better to replace it with the more common social conservatism - which does encompass the Christian Right, but also other groups outside of that.

As for Libertarianism - is this actually a faction? The Liberty Caucus, as far as I can tell, has eight members at most, most of whom overlap with the Freedom Caucus or Trumpists. This is on par with the Blue Dog Caucus in terms of relative irrelevance. There are maybe two prominent libertarian Republicans as of right now: Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, neither of whom hold any sort of leadership position. I feel it might be undue weight to highlight such a small faction. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Also, maybe we should work toward a general guideline for reporting factions in info-boxes. Do we just list organized groups competing for influence or list every possible ideological position held by members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs)
 * It seems like it's just listing every view held by members. If we're going by actual factions, there's maybe three or four:


 * Moderates
 * Republican Governance Group (43 Reps.)
 * Republican Main Street Partnership (5 senators, 70 Reps.)
 * Climate Solutions Caucus (6 senators, 29 Reps.)
 * Problem Solvers Caucus (30 Reps.)


 * Conservatives
 * Republican Study Committee (179 Reps+1 delegate)


 * Right-wing populists/hard-right/anti-establishment conservatives
 * Freedom Caucus (~42 members)

These aren't really firm groupings - a lot of members overlap between any of the moderate groups and the Study Committee. If it were up to me, I'd make the Ideology section look something like this sample.

Right-wing populism and Trumpism are fairly interchangeable, of course. You could also make an argument for Fusionism or Movement conservatism as more specific ideologies.

<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There are additional sources in the article body. Also, I don't see why ideology or factions should just be listed along caucus lines. Ideologies and factions should reflect the party, not just their delegates. Cortador (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's an extremely Eurocentric perspective. American political parties are extremely weak. They have no control over nomination - that belongs to the people via popular vote - and some states (like California and Louisiana) don't even have partisan primaries. Party membership is meaningless - you pay no fee, and in a majority of states, you don't even need to register with a party to vote in a primary (in semi-open states, all registering with a party does is preclude you from voting in any other primaries). Some states lack partisan registration at all. The actual party structures themselves have no authority to do anything other than fundraise and issue non-binding platforms (the GOP platform, for example, has long supported Puerto Rican statehood - something most Republican officeholders oppose). State level parties are especially powerless. For all intents and purposes, elected officials are American political parties. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 22:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, the two parties are organized independently in each state. Each state sends delegates every four years, selected in a manner of their choosing, to pick a presidential ticket and platform. So there could only be state-wide or city-wide factions. While the supporters of the various candidates may form factions at the convention, they do not last past the convention. TFD (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not convincing. If the party was only it's delegates, the GOP wouldn't have turned into the Trumpist mess it is now. Cortador (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources that say there are only these two ideologies and three factions? DN (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Cortador (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Define “Trumpist mess” - are you saying Republican voters are Trumpists? What evidence do you have for this - outside of who is elected in primaries, and to Congress? And I’m also going to insist that if you’re arguing here about American politics, you use proper terminology - “delegates” means something else entirely, so I’m honestly not sure what you’re referring to here. Again, applying European party organization standards to American parties (which, quite literally, have essentially nothing in common operationally) just doesn’t make sense. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 12:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Trumpists are the dominant faction of the party. We had this discussion twice already recently. If you want to change the current state of the article - like the ideology and factions you outlined above - back it up with sources. Cortador (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered my question. Are they the dominant faction of elected officials? Voters? "Delegates"? Please elaborate. My proposal includes them, so I'm frankly not even sure what you're on about. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've already answered the question, and I don't see Trumpists in your infobox proposal. Trumpists aren't interchangeable with right-wing populists; they include far-right Republicans as well (which is what that section was called originally). Cortador (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Except you haven't. What are you referring to - voters? "Delegates"? Please explain. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That Trumpist are the dominant faction doesn't appear to be true per the 538 link I found earlier . Springee (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Certainly not among elected officials, at least. That's why I'm curious to hear what has to say - maybe he'll elaborate more on what these "delegates" he's talking about are. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Cortador, in fact the federal party has turned into the Trumpist party in the sense that its leader is Donald Trump, he choses the head of the RNC and picks their platform and is their candidate for president. However, it has no control over the state parties, including the nomination of members of Senate or Congress.
 * Basically, both federal party organizations exist only to select and support their nominees for the presidency. TFD (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)