Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 8

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Democratic Party (United States) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request: Remove "right wing to far right" description side box
I don't know if this issue has been discussed at great length, but the "right wing to far right" label currently in the side box seems inappropriate to me because the Republican Party contains within itself a spectrum of opinion ranging from the centre right to the far right. The fact that Donald Trump's political positions happen to lie farther to the right than earlier presidents does not, in and of itself, indicate that the Republican Party is a "right wing to far right" party; in any other level of government than the executive branch of the federal government, there are many centre-right Republicans who are generally considered to be within the fold of the Republican Party.

One compromise could be to change the side box description of the party to "big tent of the right" as was done with Syriza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.147.182.16 (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This is an issue which really deserves attention; at the moment, neither of the two sources in the sidebox describe the Republican Party as either right wing or far right. One of them notes that Steve King associates with far right groups in Europe, but it ignores the fact that King was rebuked for these actions by Steve Stivers, head of the National Republican Congressional Committee. The rebuke indicates that we shouldn't be too quick to ignore centre right views in the Republican Party; indeed, the Tuesday Group, which includes 50 members of the House of Representatives, has been described as centrist.

There has been much discussion about this issue on the talk page, and it simply isn't enough to have a single user change the article unilaterally without resolving the dispute.

My suggestion to change the political position to "big tent of the right" as was done with Syriza, the ruling party in Greece, stands as a possible resolution to the ongoing dispute. At the very least, we should remove the "political position" section altogether for the moment.

Current House membership
Note that the House membership is now 237, in the lame-duck 115th US Congress. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2018
This particular line is controversial and an associate professor is the source. I don't think it has enough standing to be in this page. I can't find the sources from the associate professor and if this line is to remain, I think it should be sourced by the actual numbers instead of opinion.

"After the 1960s, whites increasingly identified with the Republican Party.[22]" 204.57.109.142 (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324267606_Polarization_Demographic_Change_and_White_Flight_from_the_Democratic_Party    This is an alternate link to the same journal article with the host being research gate.  The references that the associate professor used can be clearly seen, and they used a lot of sources.  Thus the article itself is sourced enough to be a valid journal article source for Wikipedia.  If you think my decision is wrong you can clarify over at Reliable sources/Noticeboard where users with more expertise over reliable sources will answer to you.  You may refer my comments if you want to say anything there.  Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"Fiscal conservative"
The body of the article disputes this designation in the infobox. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Task: Finally assign a position in the infobox using a compromise
As far as I'm aware, it's been well over a year since this has been brought up to a full discussion, and since it's going to have to be done at some point, I figured that I'd bring it up again, and hopefully put the problem to bed for good, invoking WP:CCC, Wikipedia's commitment to a global perspective, and WP:BOLD. The Republican Party has no political position set in the infobox, due to some rather contentious debates about exactly where they fall. Here, I will be laying out an argument for a position(s) which will hopefully be accepted, and will do the same thing, around the same time this is posted, on the Democratic Party talk page as well (although by my rationale, their solution is actually more complex than the one for the Republican Party). ^REMEMBER! This is an argument to place a SOURCED POLITICAL POSITION on the page. Not what you think it should be. All arguments should be clear and backed up with evidence.

Let's start with the first argument: Which political spectrum are we using?
 * This is an absolutely valid question that raises legitimate concerns. We can either use the US spectrum, or we can use the international one (which is tilted about one degree to the left of the US one-- such that a "left-wing" party in the US advocating for, say, social democracy, would be considered Center-left on the international spectrum. With my solution, I hope to take a little overlap from both, so we'll see if it can draw some support from all sides in an unbiased and civil manner.

Next, we must take into account what each position stands for in a general sense, so it will fit with the current characteristics the Party exhibits.
 * The Republican Party as a whole argues for American conservatism, as well as social conservatism and fiscal conservatism in its main platform. This would fit into the Center-right category of the US political spectrum. However, a faction(s) of the Party (Tea Party Republicans and although unorganized, some national conservatives or paleoconservatives) arguably support policies much more conservative than the party as a whole/average, which would be considered Right-wing by US standards, but Hard right or even far-right/radical by international standards. Since the Party has two different factions (albeit arguing for somewhat different ideals) that can overlap in favor of a claim for Right-wing (Tea Party conservatism and national conservatism by US standards, and average Republicans by international standards/various different political spectra), placing at least Right-wing in the infobox will eliminate the "which political spectrum" question. Right-wing is also seen as a sort of umbrella term for all kinds of ideas to the political Right, so it also fits different ideologies present within the party.

OK, so so far, based on the above compromise solution, the Republican Party would be seen as Right-wing  in the infobox. Now though, we have to ask if this includes all necessary ideas within the party, and their separate political positions.
 * In my opinion at least, the answer appears to be yes. Using an overlap of different meanings of Right-wing, they appear to encapsulate the major parts of the party in all contexts regarding the spectrum, from moderates to Tea Partiers.
 * "Wait! What about moderate Republicans? They don't seem to fit into any position you have stated above."
 * Moderate Republicans are also members of the Republican Party, and their ideas should and will be taken into account. However, I believe that a good job has already been done to include them, albeit in a rather roundabout way. As previously mentioned, Right-wing is can be seen as a sort of umbrella term for all kinds of ideas to the political Right, from Center-right all the way to Hard right or Far-right, so it also fits different ideologies present within the party. Moderate Republicans, along with Conservative Democrats, make up the centrist wings of their Party, and sometimes even have more in common with each other than the Party they belong to. However, I believe that using the compromise I crafted before, they can be included as well. As mentioned, they represent the centrist wings of their Parties, and by extension, the Center of the US political spectrum, but this would also put them roughly around the Center-right of the international spectrum.
 * "Why isn't Center-right included then?"
 * An excellent question. Center-right is not included in this specific context, because there is a faction in the Republican Party that is undoubtedly Center-right, this would not apply if the international spectrum was used to judge. America's political Center is already equivalent to the international spectrum's Center-right, which makes the Republican Party as a whole, seen as Center-right in the US, Right-wing by international standards. This is likely because the American political system and general government infrastructure has had and dealt with the current policies for such a long time now that no one is sure what impact changing them would have-- a fear that affects Democrats and Republicans as wholes as well. This is the reason why some Center-right parties in Europe (like the Independence Party in Iceland, for example, or to a lesser extent, the Conservative Party in the UK) support the varying "welfare state(s)" that their country has built and currently has, even though privately, they may want to do away with some inefficient or overgenerous policies, but either do not or cannot because of high public approval of them. So what is my point in this? Different countries and their respective spectra evolve based on what that country has had built/up and running for a long enough period of time to know that it works in at least some aspects. The conservative Democrats and liberal/moderate Republicans are, in this case, excused from the constraints of what "Center" means or constitutes (a balance between Center-left and Center-right) because their beliefs revolve around a current system that despite being less progressive than those in Europe, for example, they still manage to fit into a Right-wing umbrella position because they do balance Center-right and comparatively Right-wing ideas to an extent, but they do it within the confines of their specific country's political spectrum. However, in order to make absolutely sure that everyone is on board, a note will be included next to the position in the infobox, in order to explain this point accurately. Like this short summary, or this more detailed explanation.

In addition:
 * I went on a little exploration mission across every Wikipedia that has an article on the party, and collected the current positions listed on the page if there was one. Here is what I found as of 21 March 2017.

With all of this taken into consideration, I feel that there is enough here to make this position the new consensus. Below, to judge public opinion, I will create a "Responses" section, where you can either Support, or Oppose this proposed change (type this in bold, followed by your reasoning). If you have any questions/concerns (including about my reasoning above), or are unsure, you can leave a Comment in the "Responses" section, followed by your question/concern. It has taken me a while to formulate this, so I'd appreciate some feedback. I may respond to any concerns. Thanks!  HapHaxion  (talk / contribs) 00:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Also: an interesting/informative discussion I had on Reddit about the subject is located here.

TL;DR The Republican Party is one of the few remaining political parties to not list a position in the infobox, and each time someone tries to bring it up again to possibly change it, people come in from both sides and it ends in no new consensus. This will keep being an issue/will continue to be brought up until a decision is reached. Some non-political or non-American observers/opinions may be required to avoid perceived bias (See overall talk page section for more).  HapHaxion  (talk / contribs) 00:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Dude, you've had this RFC up for four months now and there's nothing close to a consensus. Probably time to give up on it for now.  Toa   Nidhiki05  01:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would, but my end goal was to just get it done. If it isn't it's bound to constantly be brought up in the future, so I wanted to avoid others constantly having to have this discussion repeatedly. If necessary maybe having some non-American or apolitical observers/inputs will help eliminate any biases and help reach a conclusion (regardless of what it may be, as long as there is a conclusion-- not no consensus again). It still boggles me as to the variety of reasons why a position has not been listed while it has for most other parties, so I wanted to change that.  HapHaxion   (talk / contribs) 02:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Responses/Survey
''Enter your opinion on this change here, prefacing with either Support, or Oppose in bold, followed by your reasoning, then signing your name after. You can preface with Comment for anything else.'' good idea how about mine thogh
 * The U.S. political system is currently designed to create large centrist parties. Both the Democratic and Republican parties contain many factions. They are "big tent" organizations. Throughout their histories they bob and weave to gain majorities. It seems best to avoid false labels, or trying to label moving targets, especially since there never has been a faction that is unique to one and not the other.68.40.122.133 (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take your comment as an Oppose. But to address your concern, the position in the infobox has always been the current median/mean position of the party as a whole. That's why we wouldn't list all the times they've alternated, because you're right in the fact that there would be too many. However, my goal is to place the position based on current policies and positions, and based on the fact that in recent years, with the parties becoming more and more polarized, the Republican Party has become nearly completely composed of conservatives (on the right of the spectrum) of varying degrees (which is why the position I suggested was reached using a compromise tactic), I believe my position satisfies the requirements for a change in consensus. I am not denying the fact that the party may have had a big tent approach before, but it no longer seems to. I also find it hard to believe that anyone would argue today that both parties are centrist (or if they do, it would be a minority in the party). Feel free to ask anything else if you have more concerns. Thanks for your feedback!  HapHaxion   (talk / contribs) 02:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Support although I have seen pages which have included the "American position" alongside the "Global position". For example something like the Green party would be Centre-left for European parliaments while being Left-wing in American legislatures. --Hsvkr (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Not only are both major parties too complex and divided into factions, but also historically there are changes and significant fluctuations. Single terms as "center-right" etc. would simply not be sufficient and adequate. Eventhough most parties have got a position in their infobox, some for certain reasons do not, like Australian parties for instance. In this case one should simply keep it as it is. --Joobo (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your feedback! The Australian Labor Party and the Liberal-National Coalition in Australia, from what I have gathered on the talk page and main page, do not have a position listed because of much more dramatic differences than exist in either the Republican Party or Democratic Party. For example, the Labor Party contains two main factions: The Socialist left (which supports democratic socialism) and Labor Unity (which is more like moderate to average Republicans). This is a much greater difference than exists today in either party, Democratic or Republican, which is mostly liberal or conservative, respectively. This would be a true example of a big tent party. If you have any other questions/concerns, ask away!  HapHaxion   (talk / contribs) 01:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment – I appreciate your detailed rationale but it's a bit daunting for readers to get to the point. Could you possibly add a one-line summary of the proposal you are seeking support for? — JFG talk 16:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure! It would certainly help make it easier to understand. My basic argument is this: The reason a political position hasn't been placed on this page yet is because:
 * It is unclear as to what the position would mean, as it varies by country (i.e. center-right in one country is not always the same as the center-right in another); and
 * The wide breadth of opinions and ideologies in the party from moderates to hard-liners would make it "difficult" to position it, as a large range exists in the party today.
 * I seek to remedy this by using a compromise position, which would both acknowledge the party as being more conservative than the average center-right party elsewhere, while also acknowledging that a variety of opinions exist (from center-right moderates to hard right Tea Partiers) by bundling them in the umbrella term of Right-wing which encompasses all of them. If you have any other concerns, or want to support/oppose the change, I'll welcome your opinion! You seem like a very experienced editor, so I'd appreciate it! You are also welcome to ask others to share thoughts as well, or share thoughts on my effort to change consensus regarding the Democratic Party position as well.  HapHaxion   (talk / contribs) 01:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the clarification. I would then oppose, because left–right politics is a rather outdated notion, and "right-wing" or "left-wing" are open to countless interpretations by readers, depending on their own ideological background, their own country's politics, recent events, etc. That change would not clarify things, but raise more questions. — JFG talk 03:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hope I clarified everything necessary. Also, just as a reference, most other parties have a position listed, so is the outdated notion relative to the US specifically?  HapHaxion   (talk / contribs) 03:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty outdated worldwide. Communist China is the greatest promoter of personal enrichment while maintaining an iron fist on political discourse. France just elected a coalition President based on the top two candidates explicitly rejecting the left-right divide. Elsewhere, right-wing authoritarian leaders are known to apply socialist policies. Welcome to the 21st century! — JFG talk 15:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I admit that some parties are hard to classify, but that doesn't mean that every one is. Also, regarding France, that doesn't mean that the position is meaningless or is fading away, just that voters chose a party in between the traditional right and left (thereby making it a centrist party, as it is labeled on its page). By the way, which right-wing authoritarian leaders applied socialist policies? Again, that may just be an instance of that specific leader/party being outside paradigms. That doesn't mean that all others are on average as well.  HapHaxion   (talk / contribs) 00:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We are drifting off-topic; I've made my position clear, and we should just agree to disagree. — JFG talk 06:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Broad consensus has been to have no political position, because both parties are big-tent and the section is redundant anyway. Nothing said here is new at all and honestly there is no reason to have this vote. And FYI, "right-wing" is not a compromise. Judging parties by some nonexistent "international" criteria is also silly - on economics Republicans are right, sure, but their views on church-state separation, monarchy, and immigration are well to the left of most right-wing parties. There is no "international" standard.  Toa   Nidhiki05  20:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your thoughts! How is the section redundant? Also, I based my research on the fact that the position matches the majority of the party. That is not to say that other factions don't exist, just that the position is to be based off of the majority/ideology in control currently, and the fact that I sought to sate both problems as described above. I also don't see how their philosophies are left of right-wing parties. Right-wing parties don't have to support monarchism (most don't, like in France, Italy, Germany, etc), and based on what I've seen, their policies regarding immigration and church-state separation are far more conservative/right-leaning than the main center-right parties elsewhere like the Conservative parties in Canada, the UK, France, etc.  HapHaxion   (talk / contribs) 01:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The UK has a state church. It has a monarch. The UK Conservative party is conservative in supporting both monarchy and religion. Canada and Australia have monarchs, and their right of center parties support that. Even the most religiously conservative Republican Party members don't support a state church, let alone a state religion. Republicans are a big-tent, republican, classical liberal party and as such don't fall neatly into the European right-wing paradigm. In some regards the Republicans share more in common with European liberal parties than with conservative ones. This is part of the problem of an imaginary "international political spectrum". Calling them "right-wing" is no compromise, just like calling the Democrats center to center-left isn't one. The US system has two big-tent liberal parties with no membership requirements and no ideological test. It's not remotely comparable to Europe.  Toa   Nidhiki05  14:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * According to this poll, a plurality of them do support making Christianity the official religion. Also, as far as I'm aware, all the major parties in the UK support the monarchy.  HapHaxion   (talk / contribs) 03:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Unlike in Europe, anyone can join the GOP. A more accurate measure is politicians or the party platform. Again, there is no "international political spectrum" and in the US, the GOP and Democrats are big-tent liberal parties. In regards to monarchy, the leader of Labour is a republican, the Green party is republican, SNP/Plaid and the NI republican parties are all republican. The Lib Dems favor reforms of the church. The only party that is unequivocally pro-monarchy and pro-church are the Conservatives.  Toa   Nidhiki05  14:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Since both parties are more like coalitions, it makes more sense to look at them in terms of factions. The pages for the ideological factions (Republican Main Street Partnership, Blue Dog Coalition, Congressional Progressive Caucus, etc.) already have positions on the left/right spectrum listed in the infobox. So I don't see the point in adding a position to the pages for the parties. Maybe I'm missing something. I also don't see any compromise in simply using another country (or countries) political spectrum as the basis. Articles for parties in the UK are given a position on the left/right spectrum relative to the UK. So why should it be any different for American parties? Alexander Levian (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is easier to look at the position on one page to gauge the average, rather than visiting five or six pages. Also, my compromise stems from the fact that positions vary by country, and as such, my umbrella term of Right-wing includes the acknowledgement that the party is further to the right than mainstream center-right parties elsewhere (see responses above), while also acknowledging the large diversity in opinion by grouping them into an umbrella term (of which right-wing includes everyone from center-right moderates to hard-right Tea Party members, while the note that would be written after the position would explain it, as shown in my full description above). I appreciate your thoughts!  HapHaxion   (talk / contribs) 01:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't really answer my question. Why are we not using the political spectrum relative to the country of said party (like we do for UK parties)? I didn't see any compromise (I say we should use the American standard, you say we should use the a so-called international political spectrum), you're ignoring the faction issue, and a lot of what you said borders on WP:OR. I have to continue to oppose. Alexander Levian (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Mostly because in most other countries, the center-right is signified by liberal conservative (aka moderate conservative) parties (of which the Republican Party has a faction, but it is not the majority), and because even in countries where the spectrum is shifted (i.e. where this is not the case, such as in South Korea and Japan, which have mainly/dominant center-right parties), the position is similar to what I suggested here (i.e. the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan and the Liberty Korea Party in South Korea, parallels to the US Republican Party, are listed as center-right to right-wing, despite occupying the center-right of their respective countries' political spectra). The only difference between this and what I am suggesting is that the position is fully written out instead of an umbrella term (right-wing) being used, in addition to the fact that the Republican Party has hard-right elements in the Tea Party movement.  HapHaxion   (talk / contribs) 04:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, that justifies using the term centre-right in that fashion in those countries. But you're still not giving me any argument for why parties in the United States should be the only parties for which we use the standard of other countries to determine position on the political spectrum. I've been asking this for a while now and your only responses are to compare this party to parties in other countries and then state where those parties are in the their country's spectrum. Those arguments would be compelling... if I already agreed that the standard of another country's political spectrum should be applied to American parties. That's the main problem I have with this. Alexander Levian (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case, I believe rather than me using the standard of other countries to determine the position, it is just the fact that the US and a few other countries (that I mentioned above) seem to go against the general trend, which makes them exceptions to the whole, rather than a victim of an unfair comparison. Labeling the position in the way I suggested is comparing the party's position to the ideologies associated with that position as a whole, rather than those of a specific country. For example, I mentioned the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan earlier-- it is not labeled as Center-right despite occupying that position in the country of Japan (such as the GOP does in America). Rather, it is labeled to compare (the majority of) its ideology to that associated with the positions selected to be on the page (Center-right to Right-wing). Most political parties seem to have this on Wikipedia (a general comparison to ideologies associated with the position, rather than the position the party occupies in its native country), so I don't see why the 2 main American parties should be any different. Position should also reflect what is generally associated with positions of that party. I hope I clarified your concerns!  HapHaxion   (talk / contribs) 03:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The idea Republicans are "further right" than other center-right parties comes mostly from American Democrats, who compare platforms under an American standard rather than also comparing what it means to be a conservative, liberal, or socialist in Europe. There is no "international political spectrum".  Toa   Nidhiki05  14:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In regards to the idea that Republicans being further right is a product of American Democrats, I have found multiple sources online which seems to discredit this based on opinions of people who live elsewhere.  HapHaxion   (talk / contribs) 03:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your sources are Reddit, Vice, and Quora? Look, we've had this discussion numerous times here. Nothing new has been presented.  Toa   Nidhiki05  14:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Support - I agree that there are many different political ideologies and policies in the republican party, but almost all of them fall under the right-wing umbrella. Because of this, it makes sense to classify the party as right-wing. --Skipper1931 (be sure to ping me when you reply) (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Question - Doesn't it list things already for ideologies? Skipper1931 (be sure to ping me when you reply) (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It does, although the main concern here is the position on the political spectrum overall.  HapHaxion   (talk / contribs) 03:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I think we should do what is done on the Turkish page (i.e., Center-right (minority) to Right-wing (majority). I'm not sure if that is considered "support" or "oppose". Ezhao02 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd consider that a support, since you are in favor of changing the consensus.  HapHaxion   (talk / contribs) 03:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment -- The fact that the Republican and Democratic parties control roughly equal numbers of legislative seats at all levels of government is a strong indication that (by the only measure that really counts) the political center of the country lies roughly midway between the two. All the controversy on this topic arises from politically motivated attempts to label one party more centrist and the other more extreme. In order to forge a compromise for the infobox position it needs to be done at the same time for both party infoboxes and it needs to place the two parties equidistant from the center. A simple "right" and "left" would probably be the easiest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.122.131 (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Are you saying someone like Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski would not be considered center-right internationally? They aren't that much more right wing, if at all, than say, Theresa May. George Pataki most certainly is center right. I think the whole "US is more right wing than the rest of the world" line is somewhat exaggerated. On the economic front, it may be truer to an extent, but on the social front? Germany just barely legalized gay marriage yesterday, which the US has had since 2015. Abortion laws in most of western Europe are much stricter than the US (for example, Germany caps at 13 weeks + mandatory counseling and 3 day waiting period prior to receiving one). The GOP is a member of the International Democrat Union of center right parties. I would support center-right to right wing to take into account nuances, would not support standalone right wing. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, regarding Collins and Murkowski, that's exactly what I'm saying (they are moderates, and therefore center-right), but placing the position as Center-right to Right-wing seems to ignore the much more conservative hard right factions of the party like the Tea Party Caucus or the Freedom Caucus (which hold an equal, if not greater amount of power than the moderates), which is why I suggested using Right-wing as more of an umbrella term (since both Center-right, Right-wing and hard right can all be considered "Right-wing").  HapHaxion   (talk / contribs) 23:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the Right-wing/hard right factions of the Republican Party hold more power than the moderate factions, which is why I suggested saying "Center-right (minority) to Right-wing (majority)" as a kind of compromise. Besides, this source lists the Republican Party as both center-right and right-wing. Ezhao02 (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment – Also as a heads up: Joobo seems to have been blocked for various POV violations ("WP:DE, WP:IDHT, WP:TE, WP:NOTHERE, WP:POV, etc" as stated on talk page), so take his comments with a grain of salt if possible if it looks like he is trying to push a certain idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HapHaxion (talk • contribs) 01:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Joobo was blocked two months after commenting here, and this thread was not part of the reasons discussed; I don't think this event should disqualify their comment here. — JFG talk 06:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Just as a gauge, since using Right-wing as an umbrella term for diversity from center-right to hard right and as a comparison to common center-right parties being liberal-conservative in nature seems to be a stretch, would everyone be up for doing something along the lines of what Ezhao02 (talk) suggested? That way Right-wing wouldn't group in the moderate center-right faction but would still condense the remainder of the party (hard righters and current mainstreamers) enough to avoid confusion.  HapHaxion  (talk / contribs) 05:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No. This has been here for four months and there is clearly no consensus to add anything - that's not a compromise at all, and it's not consistent with formatting used on any other pages. I think it's pretty clear there is no consensus to add anything and the consensus that says not to add anything on either page should stand.  Toa   Nidhiki05  10:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

in my opinion it just seems insane to not write anything about the party's position. for starters it's a bit hypocritical.(i.e i assume that a disproportionate number of english wikipedia editors are from the united states due to language) labeling other countries parties as right wing or left wing(i.e instead of center right center left or leaving it blank) while ignoring the elephant in the room(pun intended) logically speaking is there anyone who thinks that this is not a right of the centre party? it's common sense really. obamacare is a center-right wing program.(for confirmation you can even look at the programs of some libertarian parties in europe). if a majority of a party opposes it ,then that makes it a right wing party. it's no nuclear science — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.59.205 (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes, there's diversity within the American political parties, but it's quite silly to suggest that political diversity is unique to American political parties, and we provide descriptions of position for most others. Though there's never going to be unanimity, it's fairly clear to me that right-wing is the most accurate descriptor with respect to other political parties across the globe, which is really our only standard. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - again, just do not see a need and think it's not got WP:WEIGHT in usual sources. Markbassett (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support as that part of the infobox is supposed to be an oversimplified generalization anyways.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 01:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

in a previous post someone mentioned susan collins as centre right by international standards..doesn't the recent tax bill( and the way it was rushed usually seen only in other kinds of olitical regimes) disprove this claim? the only moderates seem to exist on a state level alone. fidesz is listed as "centre right to right wing" even though by the standards of hungary it's the centre right. now i personally think it should be just right wing(on social issued anyway) but my point is that for uniformity's sake alone we should do the same for the GOP. still a joke IMO for the word "Centre" to be on the GOP's page but not to the extend of leaving nothing.failing that we should at least remove the ideological party classification from every political party on earth. 200 countries or so. or perhaps judge every country by the USA's spectrum. yeah i think i'll go to the conservative party(UK) page and write "mild leftists" if you think this is ridiculous they you see my point!! we can't apply one standard to every single country on earth EXCEPT the united states also is there a way to hold a vote on this issue?2A02:2149:847E:3700:E4CF:1101:1795:D7A3 (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I've seen a ton of articles on Wikipedia using "center-right to right-wing" - isnt that the most sensible compromise?


 * Comment: I looked at the first citation you gave for Right-wing, and it seems to claim that the Republican Party is Center-right. Ezhao02 (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 05:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment In general, member parties of the International Democratic Union are center-right. Using center-right here is just fine. There are two large parties in the U.S.—one representing the American center-left and one the American center-right. It is true that, as with any major party, internally there are factions and exceptions. But when we use terms like "far left" or "far right," it is all relative (to, for example, other members of Congress). Certain Democrats are said to represent the "far left" of the party, but that too is just relative; those individual members do not subscribe to actual far-left ideologies. As this study from the Center for American Progress states, "Despite claims to the contrary, there really is no 'far right' or 'far left' among the electorate in the country. Based on this evidence, it is more accurate to talk about 'far center-right' and 'far center-left.'" Terms like "far left" and "far right" should be reserved for the absolute extreme ends of the political spectrum. I say just use "center-right" and explain factions in the infobox and further in the body. --Precision123 (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment/general support I agree that the GOP should be considered "Center-right" because it encompasses much political territory to the right of the mean.  However: I strongly support making a distinction between American and International (or Western) conceptions of the political spectrum. As Nationalists/Populists have gained ground in the Party, it is starting to look less Center-right, and more in the mold of the Law and Justice Party of Poland or UKIP. Both of these parties de-emphasize Conservative dogma, in favor of nationalism. Also, Law and Justice has a Christian Right thing going on, just like the GOP. This is a rather long-winded way of saying that these parties are useful analogs when thinking about the modern Republican Party. My advice is to look at their wikipages. --Inspector Semenych (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment/general oppose Centre-right politicians in Europe do not dare to propose half of the privatization and deregulation that the Republican Party proposes. The economic libertarian laissez-faire positions of the Republican Party are without a doubt far-right on the international level. The current Republican Party proposes full privatization of the healthcare industry, which is extreme by even a moderate American's standards. There is practically no debate that the GOP is far-right in economic positions.

As for the social positions of the Republican Party: An abortion ban for anything past 6 weeks, half the party still opposed to gay-marriage, a trans military ban, and privatized prisons. Positions such as voting for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and having interest in foreign nations and spreading American values are solid right wing behaviors representing Neoconservatism. Building a wall on the border, and mass deportation is also very similar to European far-right groups' platforms. The protectionist trade policy is very similar to many nativist policy platforms of far-right European populism.

Authoritarian positions: death penalty, punitive drug policy, near ban of abortion, 24/7 government surveillance, Mass deportation, military bans, proposed authorizing torture (even waterboarding), and increases in spending on the largest military in the world.

The Centre-right has become sort of a fringe among the Republican Party. Even Obama has stated that he'd consider himself a moderate Republican in the 1980s. The fact of the matter is that party polarization is real, and has caused the Republican Party to make once fringe movements, such as the Tea Party, mainstream. The Freedom caucus and Tea party along with Trump would have already pushed any remaining moderates into at least being independents. It must be said, however, that increased acceptance of LGBTQ people, increased climate change awareness, and libertarian factions keep the party from solely being far-right. The most moderate of Republicans remaining can only be considered Right-wing on the international scale, and the mainstream Republican can only appropriately be placed at Far-right.

In Conclusion: I do not hope to contribute in bias manner, but I hope that we can reach a consensus that is not based on compromise for the sake of it, but rather on truth. The moderate Republican of past has now become an independent, and the mainstream Republican has taken, by international standards, far-right positions.

Conservatives, moderates, liberals and progressives
This section is a mess. I have fixed it up somewhat by removing unsourced material. I have tagged the section, as it needs expansion, context, and more sources. The primary problem is that the section talks about various factions of the party in a muddled, disorganized way without making any effort to define the terms it is using. SunCrow (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2019
It is not fair to only say that senate majority leader Mitch McConnell blocked President Obama's supreme court nomination in the last year of his second term without also pointing out that this action had been suggested at the end of President Reagan's second term. The implication is that this action was some new action devised by the Republican party. It was not.

A sentence or two should be added at the end of that paragraph such as:

"However, this action had been earlier suggested by Senator Joe Biden near the end of President Ronald Reagan's second term and was described as a way to allow some degree of the public's direct participation in the process due to the upcoming presidential election. Although not a law, it has become known as the "Biden Rule"." Concern for complete truth (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2019
The republican party at that time did not discrimate in federal policies that was the democrat party. why are you lying? 2604:6000:1011:A14A:156E:3BA:5AC3:5502 (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Roadguy2 (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Absurdly POV filled section "Democracy"
I move that this entire section of the article be removed. Op-eds have no place being used as sources on Wikipedia, even op-eds written by academics and masquerading as academic work-product. The heavy use of moralistic terminology "misuse" "abuse" "obstructed" "undermining democracy" "constitutional norms" should be enough to can this section for absurdly transparent bias. I realize the editors on this site have a left-wing tilt but can you please try to control yourselves just a bit? This section of the article could theoretically be improved by the introduction of certain historical information that pre-dates say, 1992. I realize that's like going back to the Pleistocene for some of us, but please recall Cicero's words "To be ignorant of the world that existed before you were born is to remain forever a child."

Newt Gingrich did not, in fact, introduce the concept of inflammatory political rhetoric, and any attempt to suggest he made it worse in an objective measurable way is partisan special pleading: Orwell was observing as far back as the 1940s that the term fascist had already become a generic political insult. The first contested US presidential election between Adams and Jefferson featured accusations of hermaphroditism, and women burying their Bibles for fear Jefferson would somehow ban Christianity. Lyndon Johnson's insinuation during the election of 1964 that Barry Goldwater as president would mean America's children being incinerated in a nuclear inferno was I suppose in some sense, unprecedented. Did it signal the Democratic party "undermining democratic norms"? The examples could be multiplied a thousandfold. Much of the remainder of the section is nothing more than a series of political scientists being very very upset that Mitch McConnell is more effective as a legislative leader than they wish he was. The nonsense about Merrick Garland being treated in an "unprecedented" manner is in a sense technically true, but might be improved by some additional "unprecedented" events from slightly earlier history, to wit: The equally unprecedented series of bald-faced lies told by "Lion of the Senate" and vehicular manslaughter perpetrator Edward "Ted" Kennedy (D-MA) about Robert H. Bork during his confirmation hearings. The unprecedented practice of trying to deny Clarence Thomas a seat on the Supreme Court based on unproven and unprovable rumours that he engaged in such felonious conduct as making jokes about pubic hair and renting pornographic video tapes. The unprecedented discovery in 1973, by the Supreme Court, of a right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution. This event was unprecedented in the sense that a right to abortion can not actually be found anywhere in the text of the constitution itself and many people both with and without PhD's in political science believe that it was the cause of the treatment received by Bork, Thomas, Garland, et. al. Adding all this information listed above would make the section neutral, balanced, and factual, but would also turn Wikipedia into a political debating forum, which it was not meant to be. Thus I suggest the section be removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.61.128 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you finished with your rant? You can't make changes to the article without sources supporting them. See Reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Dimadick (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality of “democracy” section
I’ve put an NPOV tag in this section. I have several issues with it: namely, the use of opinion pieces from left-leaning outlets as authoritative sources with no counterbalance, the conflation of the person opinion of political scientists with tested academic work, the lack of any dissenting or comparative views towards the other political party. I also question why we need an entire paragraph on how terrible Newt Gingrich is; this article is about the party, not one person, and so this would likely be better suited for the Newt Gingrich article. Toa Nidhiki05 16:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nearly every source in the section is either a peer-reviewed study or an assessment by a recognized expert. The section documents changes in the GOP from the 1990s onwards, and the political science literature has accurately identified Gingrich as a key actor in the transformation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Toa 100%. SunCrow (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Alas this has controversy highlights one of the deep flaws that appears to be inherent in Wikipedia. We must rely on "reliable sources" by "recognized experts" which of course in practice means that any nonsense published by someone with an academic job can be passed off on this site. Hume's distinction between facts and values is of eternal relevance, and we should try to stick to the facts, even if political scientists rightly or wrongly believe they can do both. If Wikipedia had existed in the early 20th century I'm sure the website would have been infected with "reliable sources" written by all manner of special pleading pro-Eugenics "recognized experts". And dismissing what I wrote originally as a "rant"" without engaging with any of the obvious historical problems with the analysis presented by those "recognized experts" is the purest example of the argument from authority one can find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.61.60 (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Snooganssnoogans, I see that you have POV-ified this section in your typical fashion. It looks like you even lifted some of the material verbatim from your similar POV work on the Mitch McConnell page. I do not have the time or the inclination to attempt to correct the problem, as past experience indicates that you will simply revert and edit-war in response. So, I have renamed the section to reflect its actual content. SunCrow (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Multiple edits
NorthBySouthBaranof has reverted a series of edits I made, most of which relate to the "Democracy" section of the article. This section has accuracy, balance, and POV problems and has been tagged accordingly. I am reinstating some of the edits that I believe to be non-controversial and will present other proposed edits for discussion here. SunCrow (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In a demonstration of good faith, I have reinserted the following sentence:
 * Towards the end of the 1990s and in the early 21st century, the Republican Party increasingly resorted to "constitutional hardball" practices (the misuse of procedural tools in a way that undermines democracy).
 * I find this sentence to be problematic because it presents an opinion as if it is a fact. If it is included at all, the sentence should be edited to reflect that some writers/scholars argue that the GOP increasingly used hardball practices. SunCrow (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated "economic liberalism" as a majority ideology of the GOP in the infobox at the top of the page, but I do not think it should be here. I think the use of the word "liberalism" could confuse readers who do not click on the link to find out what the term means. I also think that the term "fiscal conservatism" (listed as an ideology that represents a "faction" of the GOP) covers much of the same territory. SunCrow (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich bologna
I am getting static from Snooganssnoogans for having again removed the assertion that Newt Gingrich "impeached President Clinton in a partisan fashion." First of all, individual members of Congress do not impeach anyone. Second of all, some House Democrats voted to impeach Clinton, which makes the rest of the assertion questionable at best. SunCrow (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the reliable sources cited, the House impeached Clinton when Gingrich was Speaker of the House, and political scientists describe the partisan manner of his impeachment and Gingrich's role in it as a key episode in American political polarization and shifting of norms. But you of course just delete reliably sourced text, because you for some reason know better than the experts cited. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You removed a number of cited reliable sources and expert discussion; your disagreement with those reliable sources is irrelevant to the encyclopedia. Furthermore, your use of the word "asserted" is a word to avoid on Wikipedia; if you object to "credited with," I'll edit it to "stated." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouthBaranof, I did not remove any sources at all in connection with the impeachment issue. Rather, I removed a factually inaccurate clause. SunCrow (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouthBaranof, I am comfortable with your proposed use of the word "stated" in the topic sentence on Gingrich and have reinstated it. I maintain that some of the other language on Gingrich has to go and should not be a close call. I removed the clause stating that Gingrich "impeached President Clinton in a partisan fashion." This is a simple matter of accuracy (see my comments from earlier today above). The language stating that Gingrich "oversaw several major government shutdowns" has again been edited to state that Gingrich "was also involved in several major government shutdowns." This is also a matter of accuracy. As I stated in my edit summary, "the question of who is to blame for any government shutdown is a matter of opinion and is not encyclopedic. Furthermore, stating that any one individual 'oversaw' government shutdowns ignores the reality that shutdowns result from individuals and groups in multiple branches of government failing to reach agreement." Again, I do not believe these two edits should even be controversial. SunCrow (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * SunCrow is entirely correct here. That section is a mess and needs to be either reworked or removed entirely. Toa Nidhiki05 14:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Another unexplained removal of content by User:Snooganssnoogans
User:Snooganssnoogans removed this content I added to the "democracy" section:

"Senate Republicans justified this by pointing to a speech from then-Senate Majority Leader Joe Biden in 1992, who argued for postposing any potential hearings from a Supreme Court nomination, should it arise, until after the election. Biden contested this interpretation of his speech."

His only explanation was that it is WP:FRINGE to contradict other sources. I'm not exactly what is fringe about proving the Republican explanation for their action, cited to news articles in two highly-reliable sources (The New York Times and Washington Post) and Joe Biden's rebuttal of that claim, but I'd love to hear answers. Toa Nidhiki05 18:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This text is used to rebut peer-reviewed research which characterizes the Garland action as unprecedented, a major violation of democratic norms and constitutional hardball. It's entirely inappropriate. Furthermore, the GOP rationale is false and not even McConnell has already dropped this faux rationale. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't rebut anything given it specifically mentions Biden disagreed with their interpretation. It seems like you just don't like it. As for McConnell, he said this:

"The tradition going back to the 1880s has been if a vacancy occurs in a presidential election year, and there is a different party in control of the Senate than the presidency, it is not filled"
 * Glad to have you as the supreme arbiter of what sources say, though.
 * Also, while you're here, would you mind providing a link to the policy or consensus that says we don't quote authors? Would love to see that. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> that the material on the Biden Rule should be included. I have rephrased it somewhat. Also, Biden was never Senate Majority Leader; in 1992, he was Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. SunCrow (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Should authors be attributed?
I’m not even sure why we’re having this discussion, but should we attribute sources in-text to the people that authored them? WP:INTEXT says: "In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation); indirect speech (a source's words modified without quotation marks); and close paraphrasing. It can also be used when loosely summarizing a source's position in your own words. It avoids inadvertent plagiarism and helps the reader see where a position is coming from. An inline citation should follow the attribution, usually at the end of the sentence or paragraph in question."<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 21:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * We attribute the news publication, not the journalists. Citing the journalists themselves makes it appear as if it's an op-ed. Reporting by a news outlet should get attributed to the news outlet (as is convention). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me highlight this again for you:

"In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation);"
 * The phrase in question directly quotes from the article. Because of this, it must be attributed in-text, and it makes sense to attribute the people who wrote the article; not attributing the makes it seem like this is an editorial piece written by the newspaper itself. No examples on this page suggest not mentioning the authors; in fact, there are two specific examples of an incorrect attribution being removed, the first being a hypothetical Lancet article where the Lancet is removed, and the second being a hypothetical New York Times article. I see no valid reason the article should not mention the authors, but there is valid reason to remove NYT entirely. As a compromise, we should attribute both. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Attributions to the NY Times editorial board goes "according to the NY Times editorial board". I don't think anyone will get confused by attributing reporting to a newspaper, as that's how most news reporting gets attributed in RS (e.g. if the LA Times mentions a NY Times report, they would write "according to the NY Times". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep saying “it’s convention” but you haven’t actually given any proof. I suggest you find some before reverting again. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 16:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you going to respond, or are you just going to keep reverting edits with no explanation like you own the page? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to revert again at this point, which would put me at 3. Don't want to do that, but Snooganssnoogans has not given any evidence for his position. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you just reverted, I’m still waiting on that link, Snooganssnoogans. I have yet to see any evidence of your stance here. If you can’t find it it might not exist and you might literally be conducting an edit war because you don’t like WP:INTEXT. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 03:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Having read the source text it definitely appears less like a news piece and much more like the kind of stuff we refer to on Wikipedia as a synthesis. I believe the authors being mentioned in this case is a good idea.--MONGO (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The source in question is a news article, not an op-ed piece; it does not require in-text attribution. Neutralitytalk 17:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you cite some sort of policy that says this? WP:INTEXT specifically says that use of direct or indirect speech from a source requires in-text attribution. Given this source is specifically quoted, in-text attribution is required. If this source were modified to not quote (either directly or indirectly) or paraphrase, there would not need to be attribution, but I don't see an exception here for news articles; in fact, all of the examples cited at WP:INTEXT are news articles. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Indirect speech" in this context refers to statements of opinion. WP:INTEXT specifically refers to "summarizing a source's position"; when describing widely accepted facts, in-text attribution is neither necessary nor desirable. The NYT statement here is not a statement of "position." If people want to know from where the statement is supported, they may click on the ref. This makes sense because were the rule otherwise, every sentence would have to have in-text attribution because Wikipedia is based on what external sources say. Neutralitytalk 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The quote is not an example of indirect speech; the phrase "debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist" is directly lifted from the article. That is, by any definition, a direct quote. So basically none of what you said is applicable. Again, I'll ask you to specifically find somewhere in policy that says not to quote authors. I can't find it, and apparently Snooganssnoogans can't find it either. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, we should paraphrase rather than directly quote; excessive quotation is poor style. Neutralitytalk 19:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)