Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 9

Climate change
The sources cited in this article document climate change denial by numerous Republicans (not some), and that this climate change denialism makes the GOP unique among Western political parties. I've therefore restored text which reflects what the sources say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:HoldingAces, your thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The official GOP platform does not deny climate change, it just underplays it as a national security issue and rejects most international agreements. Every GOP senator except one backed a resolution saying it is real. It's worth noting Republicans are part of the Climate Solutions Caucus. This might be better: "Republicans have opposed international policy measures on climate change like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement as well as national proposals like the Clean Power Plan, American Clean Energy and Security Act, and Green New Deal. Some Republicans reject the scientific consensus on climate change." Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * We stick to what reliable sources say, not how you interpret various documents produced by the GOP. As you can see in the source that you cited, even climate change deniers voted for that resolution, because climate change deniers also accept that the climate can change - they just reject the scientific consensus as to why the climate is changing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That was one Senator, James Infhoe (who is not even in Congress anymore) that said that. The fact remains that the Republican platform doesn't deny climate change. Toa Nidhiki05 01:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This Wikipedia article at no point says that the Republican Party denies climate change in its platform, so what exactly is your point? We have a multitude of sources, including peer-reviewed sources documenting that the party and numerous party members deny climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just finished reading that Hill article that you linked to, and it's quite comical that you use it as evidence that the GOP supports the scientific consensus on climate change. According to the article, only FIVE (!) Republican members of the Senate supported an amendment saying that humans contribute significantly to climate change (i.e. the scientific consensus on climate), and at least one of those added qualifiers to that determination. Only 15 Republican Senators would support an amendment saying humans contribute to climate change (without the word "significantly"). The source that you yourself brought to bear supports the notion that this party denies climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Five supported a Democratic amendment due to concerns over the language. They all supported a similar amendment with the language removed. You still haven't established the Republican platform rejecting climate change. Toa Nidhiki05 02:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) Your own source shows that only five Republican Senators support the scientific consensus on climate change. But still you won't back out of this. Lame. (2) The article at no point makes any reference whatsoever to the Republican platform endorsing climate change denial, so it's completely irrelevant. We don't sift through primary sources like political platforms to substantiate Wikipedia articles, we use reliable sources. (3) You have just edit-warred long-standing content out the article, in violation of WP:BRD. Just because you personally disagree with what reliable sources say, that does not give you permission to unilaterally remove long-standing content. If the discussion concludes that the long-standing content should be removed, then it can be removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't edit-warred anything. I made one reversion. This is your third, so I'd suggest you calm down, stop yelling, and stop reverting or else I'll have to report you.
 * And yes, the platform is relevant, because saying "The Republican Party rejects climate change" is factually incorrect. The platform, the party's policy program agreed upon at the 2016 Republican National Convention, does not deny climate change. That's an indisputable fact. The party has no control over what individual people believe, but all of their Senators except one acknowledged climate change exists in 2015. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Political platforms are not an accurate reflection of what parties stand for. There's a reason why we do not use political platforms or campaign websites as sources, but rather use reliable sources. The only RS that you brought to bear shows that only five Republican Senators would support language consistent with the scientific consensus on climate change. The last sentence in your comment is WP:DONTGETIT and not intellectually honest. And no, you are the one removing long-standing content in violation of WP:BRD. I am restoring the long-standing content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans, the disputed content has now been reverted by a total of three different editors, and yet you have re-added it three times without waiting for this discussion to happen. Until you stop edit-warring, I don't think any other editors should even listen to or engage your arguments. (It's a waste of time anyway; experience has shown that you have no interest in reaching consensus.) You have pulled stunts like this more times than I can count. Knock it off. SunCrow (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever else the article says about climate issues, I believe it should include the 2015 U.S. Senate vote referenced above by <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>. SunCrow (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So you believe we should add text noting that only five Republican Senators accept the scientific consensus on climate change (i.e. that humans significantly contribute to climate change)? I'm entirely fine with that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good. Thanks. I added it. SunCrow (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude, but your addition to that page reads a lot like canvassing to promote your position. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that this talk page discussion centers on whether the GOP endorses a fringe theory, it's entirely reasonable to ask for input on the fringe theory noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s fine to give notice. I did so at WikiProject Conservatism. What’s not okay is explicitly saying people need to support your position. That’s canvassing and isn’t allowed. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right, that would not be okay. That is probably the reason why Snooganssnoogans didn't do it. Can we please put this silly side quest to rest and concentrate on the matter at hand?
 * "Climate change denial" is generally defined as rejection of any part of the scientific consensus, including the reason why the climate is changing. There are enough reliable sources to support the statement that the GOP is anti-climate science, or full of climate change deniers. Snoogans is right, and his reverters are wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with removing the sentence because it is unsourced. In addition, unlike foreign political parties, U.S. parties have no mechanism for determining who joins or who gets expelled and exercise no ideological discipline even on elected members. So it is misleading to make sweeping statements such as that the GOP denies scientific consensus on climate change. It should also be pointed out that while center right parties outside the U.S. (not all of whom are conservative btw) accept the science, they don't actually do anything about climate change. The difference would seem to be that the U.S. is the only country where there are large numbers of people who don't accept science. TFD (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which sentence is unsourced? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, we are talking about Snooganssnoogans original edit, which read: Unlike other conservative political parties in Western nations, the GOP denies the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.”

Let’s look at the NYmag article Snooganssnoogans provided for the edit. It states, “Indeed, the Republican Party stands alone in its conviction that no national or international response to climate change is needed.” We know that is false. See this, this, this, this and many more. In fact, even Vox acknowledges that “hardcore denialism of the ‘it’s a hoax’ variety has largely receded. . . [and moved] to the next line of defense: Yes, the climate is changing, but we don’t know to what extent humans are responsible.” For the same reasons, we now know that using the word “numerous” over “some” is incorrect, unless one is simply to trying to weasel their POV into the article.

Now Hob Gadling pointed out that “climate change denial” is “generally defined as rejection of any part of the scientific consensus, including the reason why the climate is changing.” So I expect to hear an argument that goes like this: The GOP says “we don’t know to what extent humans are responsible,” it is therefore engaging in a form of “climate change denial.” That would be correct if there was a scientific consensus on exactly how much humans contribute to climate change, but there is not—look at this graph which is accompanied by hyperlinks to the actual studies to see. Put plainly, there is significant variation in the estimates of human contribution to climate change. Therefore, the argument that the GOP “denies” climate change because they say they do not know how much of climate change is caused by humans is incorrect because the scientific community does not know exactly how much humans contribute to climate change; albeit, they agree it is “signficant.” If the GOP, as a whole, said that humans have not contributed to climate change at all, then it would be appropriate to call them deniers. But they have not said that.

Let’s all be honest. The GOP does not deny climate change exists. They do, however, largely oppose climate-change policies. They do that not because they don’t believe it exists, but because they are trying to protect oil companies and other large industries that contribute significantly to climate change. If you want to avoid this whole conversation spanning weeks (which I sure do), don’t attempt to take a cheap shot at the GOP’s intelligence when you have more than enough ammo (RSs) to challenge their motives. HoldingAces (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The sentence Unlike other conservative political parties in Western nations, the GOP denies the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.” has four cited sources, including two peer-reviewed studies, one of which states verbatim: "The U.S. Republican Party is an anomaly in denying anthropogenic climate change." Of course, disappointingly, the motives for the removal of the content have now been made clear, as the removing editors have espoused fringe views about the scientific consensus on climate change. The scientific consensus on climate is very simply that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change. It is not that human activity contributes an unknown amount to climate change. Furthermore, the body of the article documents at great length that numerous Republican politicians reject the science on climate change, and that the GOP has changed since 2008 (I notice that you cite a source about McCain from 2008). I suggest you read the body of the article, which already documents a shift since 2008. Bizarrely, one of the editors edit-warring this content out of the article even inadvertently cited a source showing that only 5 Republican Senators support language consistent with the scientific consensus Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate if you did not twist my words and make a veiled accusation that I subscribe to “fringe views about the scientific consensus on climate change.” I never said that human activity is not a primary contributor to climate change. I said there was variation in the scientific community’s estimates of human contribution. Suggesting that my stating the fact equates with a belief that human activity is not a primary contributor to climate change is logically fallacious and dishonest.


 * But let’s looks at the “four sources.”


 * From the TIME article: “But it’s clear that more Republicans have realized that the topic isn’t going away. Forty-three Republicans have joined the Climate Solutions Caucus, a bipartisan group in the House meant to foster discussion on the issue. Right now the majority of its Republican members continue to oppose many meaningful climate measures, but they insist that climate change is real and that they want to do something about it.” I am not sure how this supports your edit?


 * Could you point to the content in “The Koch Network and Republican Party Extremism” where it says the GOP denies climate change? I cannot find anything.


 * Now, I cannot access the “More than Markets: A Comparative Study of Nine Conservative Parties on Climate Change” article, but the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the Guardian state that the article’s conclusion is “that the US Republican Party stands alone in its rejection of the need to tackle climate change.” Could you point to something in this comparative study—other than the abstract—that says the GOP denies climate change?


 * And the NYMag article just cites to “More than Markets” article. HoldingAces (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The first sentence in the TIME article: "The Republican Party questions the science of climate change and the need to address it more than any other party in the Western world." As has already been made explicitly clear in this discussion, climate change deniers often accept that "climate change is real", they just refuse to attribute climate change to human activity. The POP study: "with increasing unanimity, Republican politicians rail against climate-change reforms and seek to undercut environmental regulations of all kinds. As Vox reporter David Roberts has detailed, popular views are not sufficient to explain why the U.S. Republican Party has become “the world’s only major climate-denialist party,” an outlier even compared to other conservative political parties worldwide". The other study states: "The U.S. Republican Party is an anomaly in denying anthropogenic climate change." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You claimed that Republicans holding the view "we don’t know to what extent humans are responsible" was consistent with the scientific consensus. That's fringe nonsense. The scientific consensus is that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is old stuff by this point ..must be some academic publications analysing this. -- 00:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The environment section cites several academic publications, including the pristine (2018) book "The Republican Reversal: Conservatives and the Environment from Nixon to Trump" by Turner and Isenberg, and published by Harvard University Press. Here are some relevant bits from that book:
 * "Trump’s environmental agenda put him in lockstep with many of his Republican contemporaries. By the time he announced his candidacy, his most extreme statements, such as his pledge to eliminate the EPA and his dismissal of climate science, had become familiar conservative talking points. " p. 2
 * "Rohrabacher’s views were the product of decades of rightward movement in the Republican Party, which increasingly dismissed scien- tific expertise and saw in environmental policy an insidious political agenda that put global interests, not American interests, first." p. 2 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "it was clear that to be a con- tender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, dismissing global warming had become an imperative—a sharp reversal from just four years before." p. 189 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It might also help to make sure everyone is talking about the same thing. Climate Change or (anthropogenic) Global Warming. Whether it's happening or not vs whether it's happening and there's little we can do about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Just in case anyone has lost track of what the argument is about, here is the text that is under dispute:
 * The Republican Party is unique in denying anthropogenic climate change among conservative political parties across the Western world.
 * I recall that there has also been a dispute about whether a similar sentence should be included in the lede.
 * Also, please note that the article, in its current form, already contains a five-paragraph section that discusses the GOP position on climate change and other environmental issues in some depth (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)#Environmental_policies).
 * I do not see anything in the article that compares the GOP's position on ANY issue to the positions taken by conservative parties elsewhere in the world. Putting aside (for the moment) my concerns about the accuracy and neutrality of the disputed sentence, I ask: Why should the article compare the GOP's position on this one issue to the position taken by political parties in other nations? I would argue that it should not. Let's leave the article as it is. SunCrow (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Snooganssnoogans, along with HoldingAces, I object to your dishonest characterization of the perspectives held by me and other editors regarding climate change. I have not expressed a viewpoint about climate change in my comments, so you have no idea what my views are and have no business characterizing them at all. Cut it out and focus on the topic at hand. SunCrow (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "I object to your dishonest characterization of the perspectives held by me and other editors regarding climate change." You and Toa Nidhiki05 are literally edit-warring long-standing content out of the article because you believe "climate change is real" is the same thing as "human-cause climate change is real". You and Toa Nidhiki05 have done this even though it's been explained repeatedly that these are different. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Didn't you people forget to delete the paragraph starting with "From 2008 to 2017, the Republican Party went from "debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist""? It pretty much says the same thing as the deleted one. It also has reliable sources, like the deleted one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Good question, Hob Gadling. The first sentence of that paragraph is a total crock, and is flatly contradicted by the 2015 vote referenced above (see https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/230316-senate-votes-98-1-that-climate-change-is-real). I have removed that sentence. SunCrow (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My contribution was sarcasm. Perhaps I should have marked it as such.
 * Oh, I was well aware that it was sarcasm. But your question was still good. It was just unintentionally good. ;) SunCrow (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Upon further review, I retract my statement about the following sentence: "From 2008 to 2017, the Republican Party went from debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist" and have reinstated it. SunCrow (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said above, climate change denial includes denial of "the reason why the climate is changing". The source you just gave says that the Republican senators rejected the "anthropogenic" part. So, yes, they are denialists. And you are denialism denialist. You are whitewashing the GOP's anti-science stance by removing the sourced statements in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Bologna. SunCrow (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The objection of Republican senators to the Democratic amendment was not the “human” part, but the “significantly” part. In other words, they all agreed that it is caused by humans, they just objected to that specific language. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 12:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The scientific consensus is that human activity contributes significantly to climate change. You've been informed of this repeatedly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And no, not all Republicans agreed that it was caused by humans. That is a blatant and brazen lie. Per your own source, only 15 Republican Senators agreed that human activity played *some* role in climate change (note that the scientific consensus is that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I am going to try and consolidate Snoogan’s and Gadling’s arguments and address them. Please, Snoogan or Gadling, if I mischaracterize your arguments, do not mention one, or otherwise misstate them, please let me know and know that it was not intentional.

(1) That Republicans say, “[W]e don’t know to what extent humans are responsible” is inconsistent with the scientific consensus and therefore amounts to denial of anthropogenic climate change.

I disagree with this assessment. Extent is “the area, length, or size of something.” And the question, “To what extent” means “how much.” Let’s do a quick example. But first let’s set up some parameters: (1) climate change denial is different from denial of anthropogenic climate change—the latter is the topic of our discussion, and (2) denial of anthropogenic climate change can take a number of different forms, including a flat-out denial that human activity contributes to climate change and a denial that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change. Here’s the example: Let say I believe that human activity contributes 20% to climate change and Snoogan believes human activity contributes 95%. That is a difference in “extent.” In other words, Snoogan and I disagree on the “size of [human contribution]” or “how much” human contribution affects climate change. Nevertheless, because—in this example—I say that human activity contributes only 20% to climate change, that makes me a denier of anthropogenic climate change under the definition provided above (that is, parameter (2)). But what if I believed that human activity contributes 91% to climate change and Snoogans believes it contributes 95% to climate change. Just as it was a difference in “extent” when I believed it was 20% and Snoogans believed it was 95%, so too here. My belief that human activity is 91% responsible for climate change and Snoogans’ belief (in this example) that it contributes to 95% is a difference in extent. The critical difference between this 91%-versus-95% scenario and the 20%-versus-95% scenario is that one cannot say that I am a denier of anthropogenic climate change because “primary” means “main” and surely my belief that human activity contributes 91% to climate change is a recognition that human activity is the “main” cause of climate change.

Now this leads to my conclusion. No source discussed thus far claims to define the “extent” to which the GOP believes human activity contributes to climate change. All that we have are sources saying that the GOP says it is unsure about the “extent.” This is critical because without knowing to what extent the GOP believes human activity contributes to climate change, you cannot—without assuming that whatever the GOP’s belief is, it is something less than human activity as the primary cause of climate change—conclude that they are deniers of anthropogenic climate change.

(2) Republican Senators voted not to pass a bill that said human activity has “significantly” contributed to climate change. That is a clear denial of “anthropogenic” climate change. (I will assume for this argument that “significant” and “primary” are in fact synonymous.)

I disagree for a couple of reasons. First, to equate the Senators’ vote not to pass the bill as an expression of their belief that human activity is not a primary contributor to climate change is WP:SYNTH. That is, you must “combine material from [one or more] sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.” Specifically, no source provided thus far says that the Republicans’ no vote was an expression of their belief that human activity is not a primary contributor to climate change. Second—and this is implied in the first argument—a vote to not pass a bill does not necessarily mean that a senator disagrees with the merits or factual contentions in the bill. Here are some extreme examples, lets say the bill that had the word “significantly” comes back to the floor of the Senate, except this time, shortly before the Senate was about to vote, a Republican inserts a provision that reads, “Oh yeah, abortion is hereby and forever banned across the United States.” I think it is fair to say few, if any, Senators (especially the Democratic Senators) would vote for that bill. (FYI the insertion of absurd material into a bill to dissuade others from voting on it is known as a “poison pill” and it, unfortunately, happens quite often.) Another example of where a Senator’s vote does not necessarily reflect her beliefs is where a Senator believes that a bill should be passed but is threatened by lobbyists who say they will pull funding from the Senator if she votes to pass the bill. See this Atlantic article as an example.

But let’s look at a close-to-home example: Mitch McConnel’s effort to get the Senate to vote on the Green New Deal. Many news organizations have called out McConnel’s action, claiming that he is simply trying to undermine the Green New Deal’s vision—these sources are likely correct. McConnel knows that the bill is underdeveloped and plans to capitalize on that by forcing a vote, knowing that many Democrats will not vote to pass it because, although those Senators believe the bill’s goals are good, they think it needs to be developed through committee hearings, expert testimony, and a true national debate. Here are some sources NPR, E&E, and NYT. Now I don’t think anyone could seriously argue that because the Democratic Senators who do not vote to pass that bill out of concerns that the bill is underdeveloped do not support the Green New Deal’s efforts. All of these examples are just to illustrate one point: A “no” vote does not necessarily mean the Senators disagree with the factual assertions a bill makes or the bill’s concerns.

I believe, based on our discussion and the sources provided, there is strong support for a sentence that reads: The GOP acknowledges that anthropogenic climate change exists, although some GOP representatives are unsure about the extent to which human activity contributes to climate change. HoldingAces (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @User:HoldingAces: Item (1), parameter (1) is already wrong. Read the article Climate change denial, and you will learn that the term, just as I have been saying, and just as Snoogans has been saying, includes denial of "the extent to which it is caused by humans". Of course, every measurement has error bars, but this goes far beyond them. Your thought experiment is beside the point, and you should just have read the article Climate change denial instead of armchair philosophizing (or original research, if you prefer that term).
 * Item (2) is also irrelevant. We already have enough reliable sources saying that the GOP is a hotbed of science denial. Original research is not needed for the sentences you people removed, since the sources for those sentences were deleted together with them.
 * "The GOP acknowledges that anthropogenic climate change exists" is exactly the whitewashing I am talking about. That phrase - "to acknowledge that anthropogenic climate change exists" is one of the talking points of denialists. See Climate change denial, items 3 and 4 in the "six stages of denial".
 * All this shows that you people have fallen for at least part of the denialists' propaganda. You hold fringe views about what climate change denial is and about the consensus within the scientific community about the amount of climate change that is anthropogenic. So, User:SunCrow's accusation "I object to your dishonest characterization of the perspectives held by me and other editors regarding climate change" was plain wrong.
 * You probably did not know that your views are fringe, because you live in a Republican echo chamber and because of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Nonetheless, the article should not be based on your mistaken ideas about those aspects of climate science. Instead, it should be based on reliable sources. The way it was before the deletions, for example. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hob Gadling, I did not know I had fringe views and lived in a Republican echo chamber. Thank you for enlightening me! LOL. SunCrow (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hob Gadling, are you related to User:Snooganssnoogans? SunCrow (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We are both science-oriented and do not like pseudoscience. To people who get their information from fake news sources, we may look very similar, but almost any other skeptic would also look the same.
 * So you have run out of justifications that at least seem to be related to the matter at hand? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hob Gadling, I cannot answer your question. As a helpless victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect, I--despite having a high opinion of my own intellectual capacity--am too stupid to understand your question. I am going to go listen to fake news in my echo chamber now. LOL. SunCrow (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Enough vitriol, please. I incorrectly phrased what I was trying to say with parameter (1). All I meant was that there is a conceptual difference between one who says there is no such thing as climate change and one who says that climate change is not, or not primarily, caused by human activity. That both of these concepts would fall under the “climate-change denialism” is not a fact I disagree with, which should be evident from my comments above. All that I was trying to do with parameter (1) was to clarify that we are talking about the claim that the GOP denies anthropogenic climate change and not a claim that the GOP denies climate change is occurring. That’s it, nothing more.


 * I am neither “armchair philosophizing” nor performing any OR.


 * With (1), I was simply trying to get you to realize that you are assuming the Republicans believe that human activity is not a primary contributor to climate change when they say they’re unsure “to what extent humans are responsible.” I provided the 20%-91%-95% examples to highlight exactly where in your logic you make that assumption—an assumption you reaffirmed when you state, "Of course, every measurement has error bars, but this goes far beyond them."


 * With (2), I again used examples to illustrate how the idea that Republicans voting “no” on a bill does not necessarily mean they disagree with the bill’s substance, and that to conclude otherwise would require sources that explore the motivations for those votes—the sources have not been provided. HoldingAces (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * However, I do think you're right that my suggested sentence would be improper. Sorry about that. I've stricken it. HoldingAces (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not assuming anything like that. Yes, the wording "to what extent humans are responsible" can be interpreted like that. But if this was about the difference between 91% and 95%, nobody would be talking about it. Who cares about a few percentage points? The only reason why a political party would make such a statement is that the differences in extent between their view and the view of climate science are huge. The wording is an attempt to deny it's man-made, while keeping face for the eventuality that the voters find out who is right.
 * And yes, there could be another reason for voting no. Republican politicians are (besides free-market think tanks and the fossil-fuel industry that finances them) one of the most important forces of climate-change denial, but somehow they may have voted no on a cliamte-change resolution for another, unfathomable reason. All these talking points are just exploitation of loopholes in logic and language.
 * And why would politicians believe they had the competence to contradict virtually an entire scientific field anyway? Dunning-Kruger again.
 * But all that is beside the point. I said it before, and will repeat it in a clearer way:
 * Nobody wants to do original research and draw conclusions from the sources that are in the article now, to the statements that have been deleted.
 * Instead, we want the statements that have been deleted to be sourced to the sources that have been deleted.
 * This is about the deletions from the Environmental policies paragraph in this difference . For example,
 * From 2008 to 2017, the Republican Party went from "debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist", according to The New York Times. In 2011, "more than half of the Republicans in the House and three-quarters of Republican senators" said "that the threat of global warming, as a man-made and highly threatening phenomenon, is at best an exaggeration and at worst an utter 'hoax'", according to Judith Warner writing in The New York Times Magazine. In 2014, more than 55% of congressional Republicans were climate change deniers, according to NBC News.


 * turned into
 * "According to the Center for American Progress, a non-profit liberal advocacy group", more than 55% of congressional Republicans were climate change deniers.
 * So, the fact that the percentage came from a survey disappeared, and the source changed from a highly reliable newspaper to some "liberal advocacy group". So it's probably just some number made up from scratch by activists with sinister intent, and does not reflect reality. And all the other stuff that emphasizes the GOP's growing distance from science and reality has disappeared entirely. It is as if this were just a difference of opinion between Republicans and "liberals", when it is actually virtually the whole of science, plus most of the non-US world, on the other side.
 * So, is there any justification for that removal? --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Read my edit summary. I removed the NYT source because it’s an opinion piece and not remotely a reliable source of fact. On top of that, citing it to The New York Times instead of the author is extremely misleading and improper. The content was removed because it wasn’t actually the news site making the claim - they were citing the Center for American Progress, an ideologically-driven progressive advocacy group. Rather than cite this source three times and drag its claims out, I reduced it to one source and gave proper attribution to the source (CAP, which is indisputably a liberal advocacy group). As for the PolitiFact report, I again gave actual context to what the source said, which is they only found 8 that agreed - not that only 8 Republicans in Congress agreed. By their own admission, many Congressmen haven’t taken an explicit stance on the issue.
 * I’m not actually sure you understand how sourcing works here if you think what I removed deserved to stay. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 12:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate why you believe the NYT article to be an opinion piece? It's not marked as opinion by the newspaper itself and there is no other disclaimer on it that would lead me to believe that. Regards So  Why  13:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear that too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Similarly, I find zero justification for treating that NYT article as an opinion column; it's in the newspaper's reported news section, not written in first person and appears to fit the standard definitions of news journalism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, the 91%-to-95% was just an example. But I agree that reasonable people would not care about a few percentage points, but we are not talking about reasonable people. We’re talking about US politics and its related news coverage. And they will nitpick facts, and they will talk about it. Here’s an example. Politfact ran an article in which they analyzed Trump’s claim that “[o]ne in three women is sexually assaulted on the dangerous journey north” (i.e., 33%). Politicfact concluded that Trump’s claim was only “half true” because “[a] 2017 report from Doctors Without Borders said 31.4 percent of women had been sexually abused during their transit through Mexico.” (Emphasis added.)

Further, as WP editors (required to follow WP policy, including WP:VERIFY), we are not in a position to interpret the GOP statement that they are unsure “to what extent humans are responsible” as an implicit acknowledgement that they do not think human activity is a primary contributor to climate change. Similarly, we cannot say the statement shows that the GOP does think human activity is a primary contributor. (This is exactly why I conceded that my suggested edit above was improper.)

You acknowledge that “there could be another reasons for voting no” but maintain that the idea that “they may have voted no on a climate-change resolution for another. . . reason” is “unfathomable.” Reasonable as your assessment may be, we cannot impute our experience or knowledge on a topic into an article’s contents. See WP:VERIFY (“[C]ontent is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors.”).

To quickly address your beside-the-point statement: I do not think the GOP is necessarily suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. They often cite their inability to meaningfully assess the evidence while dodging the topic, saying things like, “I am not a scientist.”

Now I move on to your two bullets points: (1) “Nobody wants to do original research and draw conclusions from the sources that are in the article now, to the statements that have been deleted,” and (2) “Instead, we want the statements that have been deleted to be sourced to the sources that have been deleted.”

First bullet: I agree that nobody wants to do original research and draw conclusions from the sources that are in the article now, but no one said that about the sources currently in the article.

In a previous comment, I noted, “even Vox acknowledges that ‘hardcore denialism of the it’s a hoax variety has largely receded. . . [and moved] to the next line of defense: Yes, the climate is changing, but we don’t know to what extent humans are responsible.’” Snoogans replied to that comment, explaining “The scientific consensus on climate is very simply that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change. It is not that human activity contributes an unknown amount to climate change.” It was this comment that sparked the to-what-extent-humans-are-responsible discussion. Since then, I have been trying to show that the argument—that the Republicans do not believe human activity is a primary contributor because they say they’re unsure about the extent of human contribution—is logically unsound.

Similarly, Snoogans also commented, “Bizarrely, one of the editors edit-warring this content out of the article even inadvertently cited a source showing that only 5 Republican Senators support language consistent with the scientific consensus” This led to me explaining why a “no” vote does not necessarily equate with disagreement with the contents of the bill.

Second bullet: The original edit by Snoogans—which read [t]he Republican Party is unique in denying anthropogenic climate change among conservative political parties across the Western world—was supported by four sources. Those were as follows: (1) “More than Markets: A Comparative Study of Nine Conservative Parties on Climate Change” (2015); (2) “The Koch Network and Republican Party Extremism” (2016); (3) a NYMag article; and (4) a TIME article. Let’s take a look at them. The “More than Markets” article contains the following sentence in its abstract: “The U.S. Republican Party is an anomaly in denying anthropogenic climate change.” This article presents an excellent example of why abstracts should rarely be quoted—they do not always accurately represent the claims made in the article. Fortunately, I got a hold of this article. What this article did was compare conservative parties from nine different countries “to address two questions. First, to what extent do conservative parties treat climate change as a serious issue? And second, is it possible to find a common conservative approach to the issue of climate change. . . .” (Bastrand, 2015, 540). With respect to the GOP, Bastrand (the article’s author) expressed his finding this way:
 * Following the critical approach to climate politics, the party does not promote new measures. Quite the contrary, the party opposes emissions trading in the form of cap and trade legislation without referring explicitly to climate change. The party seems to treat climate change as a nonissue, and hence skirts the need for any measures, either based on state or market initiatives. This appears to be consistent with the U.S. national context as a country with large reserves of coal. (Citation omitted.)

This conclusion is a far cry from the claim in the abstract.

What’s more, the article performed its analysis by comparing “the manifestos of nine conservative parties.” (Emphasis added.) For the GOP, it used the 2012 Republican Platform. (Bastrand, 2015, 546). And the conclusion quoted above was based solely on the following statement in the 2012 Republican Platform: "We also call on Congress to take quick action to prohibit the EPA from moving forward with new greenhouse gas regulations that will harm the nation’s economy and threaten millions of jobs over the next quarter century. (Republican Party 2012, 19)"

That statement is no longer in the Republican Party platform. See here. So, if what Snoogans says is true—that “Political platforms are not an accurate reflection of what the parties stand for"—then the source he provided is worthless. Nevertheless, the fact remains: “More than Markets” is no longer current and therefore cannot support a claim that the GOP is currently the only party “across the Western world” that “den[ies] anthropogenic climate change.”

Let’s look at the next article, “The Koch Network and Republican Party Extremism.” This article similarly does not support the original edit. The article’s primary concern is to explain, in its view, why the Republican party’s “far-right lunge” does not seem to match the desires and opinions of its base. (Skocpol, Hertel-Fernandez, 2016, 681). The entire article’s purpose is encapsulated in the final paragraph of its introduction: “As we will show, the rise of the Koch network may help explain the increasingly-extreme economic positions espoused by most GOP candidates and officeholders.” In other words, although it does attempt to describe why the GOP opposes Democratic climate-change policies (i.e., because of the recent and far-reaching involvement of the Koch network), it has nothing to do with whether the GOP denies anthropogenic climate change.

Nevertheless, in the introduction, while describing its purpose, it does state: “As Vox reporter David Roberts has detailed, popular views are not sufficient to explain why the U.S. Republican Party has become ‘the world’s only major climate-denialist party,’ an outlier even compared to other conservative political parties worldwide.” Notice it states “climate-denialist party," which could easily be understood to mean "climate-[policy]-denialist party” as that it one focus of the article. But that’s not the main problem with this.

More problematic is the Vox article written by Roberts that is cited by the Koch article. In that Vox piece, Roberts cites to NYMag to support his “only major climate-denialist party” claim. This is the same NYMag article that Snoogans provided as source for his original edit. And guess what that NYMag article cites to. You guessed right, the “More than Markets” study by Sondre Batstrand. Accordingly, the “Koch” article and the NYMag article fail to support the original edit for the same reasons the “More than Markets” study does.

Finally, the last source provided for the original edit: the TIME article. Just read it. There’s nothing in there approaching a claim that GOP is unique in denying anthropogenic climate change among conservative political parties across the Western world.

Bottom line: The sources provided for the original edit fall short of carrying their burden. HoldingAces (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read this wall of text up to the point where it goes from the first bullet point to the second one, then I got tired of it. It was all justification for past events, and nothing about the current question. Thus irrelevant. Not about improvement of the article. I don't have much hope for the rest of that TL;DR monster. Short question: Is there anything in it that I should bother to read? --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? It's so long because I addressed every one of your points (aside from the ones that questioned other edits); you cannot fault me for that. That being said, the material under Second bullet is the most germane. HoldingAces (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should not have addressed irrelevant items, about which your opponent had explicitly said they were about things nobody wants to do, at length?
 * I have now looked at the second part. (Yesterday, I used my time to remove some anti-semites from Category:Critics of Judaism instead. That was more productive than reading and refuting your evasions, but I guess I will have to do it anyway.) It's your usual shyster-like search for loopholes in the text of the sources that semm to justify their deletion to somebody who squints while looking at them.
 * More than Markets: You quoted just one sentence from the article. That is actually worse than an abstract. This article says a bit more. But I cannot defend the source, not because it is not defensible but because I am restricted to what the net gives me, since I cannot access that article itself. But your resoning "“More than Markets” is no longer current" is ridiculous. DJ Trump is the most prominent climate change denier in the world, and you are saying that the party that chose him as its leader, after hearing about his views on that, has now abandoned the denialism it had adhered to even before he joined? And even if that were true, it would be interesting as history.
 * Sub-point: "So, if what Snoogans says is true—that “Political platforms are not an accurate reflection of what the parties stand for"—then the source he provided is worthless." Getting from "not accurate" to "worthless" is quite a leap of logic. Political platforms may not be an accurate reflection, but at least they are an indication. Reliable sources get this distinction. We use reliable sources because they are supposed to be good at drawing valid conclusions. We should let them do it, instead of overriding their conclusions with our own thinking. That is why we have WP:OR.
 * "The Koch Network and Republican Party Extremism": Yes this article gives the reason for the Republicans' (or anybody else's) climate change denial: They do not want regulation. Truth or science do not matter to them, they don't care whether what they say is right or wrong, they just don't want regulation. Climate change denial is one weapon they use for that, and legislation is another. The article looks into the whole climate-denial sleaze between GOP, AFP, and Koch astroturfing. A useful source.
 * Sub-point: "“climate-denialist party," which could easily be understood to mean "climate-[policy]-denialist party”" You are performing exegesis on the sources, coming to the conclusion that they may have tried to clumsily say something else than what they actually say.
 * "Why Are Republicans the Only Climate-Science-Denying Party in the World?": This article has a lot of additional information, and Batstrand is just one source it quotes. Yet you reject it because of the minor technicality that it quotes Batstrand. When one source quotes another, that may justify removing one of them, if it offers no additional info, but not both. If the Batstrand article was that influential, that is even more reason to quote it.
 * "Why Some Republicans are Rethinking Climate Change" (TIME) You say "There’s nothing in there approaching a claim that GOP "is unique"" - that is a correct sentence, but since the article says things like "President Trump has called global warming a “hoax,” and many top Republicans in the White House and in Congress are skeptical about the science of climate change, raising questions about its severity or outright denying it", as well as other similar things, it is a source for widespread denial within the GOP.
 * Please stop pinging me. I already know this discussion is happening. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oops, I did not realize you responded. I will not ping you anymore, sorry. Could you ping me though if you respond? I don’t login every day and the email would help me out.


 * I wish you would not view you and me as “opponent[s],” I am just trying to make sure the article remains NPOV.


 * I responded to the “irrelevant items” because your comment made jabs against my argument and asked questions that I felt need to be addressed (i.e., “All the[] [Republican’s] talking points are just exploitation of loopholes in logic and language”; “Who cares about a few percentage points?”; “[W]hy would politicians believe they had competence to contradict virtually an entire scientific field anyway?”). But, okay; from here forward, I will not address the irrelevant portions of your responses.


 * I quoted much more than one sentence from “More than Markets.” The block quote is his entire conclusion on the Republican Party. (The article you linked does a good job at describing the “More than Markets” methodology). My no-longer-current logic is simple: More than Markets drew its conclusion from a specific sentence in the 2012 Republican Party platform > that sentence is no longer in the 2016 Republican Party platform = “More than Markets” not current.
 * The “Koch Network” article. It does not make an independent claim that GOP denies climate change. It explains why they oppose the Democrats climate-change policies. (With my other observation (not argument), I was just trying to point out that “climate-denialist party” is an ambiguous statement).
 * The NYMag article parrots Batstrand’s abstract. It offers additional information, yes. But that additional information, similar to the “Koch Network” article, is aimed at discussing why GOP opposes climate-change policies from the other side of the aisle. The article does not make an independent claim that the entire GOP denies climate change.
 * The TIME article. “Many” ≠ all. HoldingAces (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @HoldingAces: You ignored my reasoning (for example that even if the denial is not in the platform anymore, it is still an important talking point of Republicans, and its former presence there is historically interesting), repeated your own reasoning from before, and focused on minor points instead. This discussion is pointless. It is like talking to a polite wall. EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not going to lie, the "polite wall" comment made me laugh pretty hard. I am definitely going to use that one later! Anyway, implicit in my response was the point that, of the sources provided thus far, no one has a provided a RS for a claim that the GOP—as a whole and as it exists today—denies climate change. We have a multitude of sources saying that they oppose nearly every non-market-based solution, that their opposition likely stems from Koch money, and that they repeatedly say they dont know to what extent humans are responsible. But, again, we have nothing saying the entire GOP currently denies climate change. HoldingAces (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * From the Republican Party's 2016 platform you linked: We will likewise forbid the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide, something never envisioned when Congress passed the Clean Air Act. So while the semantic wording has changed, the substantive reality of the GOP's platform remains the same — the modern Republican Party emphatically rejects any federal ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and, in fact, wants to permanently legislatively prohibit such action. You cannot possibly argue that the party's substantive position is different than it was in 2012. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're suggesting that Batstrand would reach the same conclusion if he analyzed the 2016 platform, that's either WP:SYNTH or WP:OR; neither is appropriate. Leaving that point aside, you're incorrect for one simple reason: Opposing federal-government regulation of carbon dioxide does not necessarily mean one denies anthropogenic climate change. As Batstrand explains in his "More than Markets" article: "Market solutions contain ways of making markets environmentally friendly, beyond simply via letting the markets decide, while still being an alternative to government regulation. For instance, free market environmentalism may be manifested by 'instituting a legal system of rights which can be modified by transactions on the market.' Market solutions stand in opposition to taxation and regulation. And so '[t]he correction of market failure could be achieved without recourse to the use of external cost-internalizing taxes . . . ." (Batstrand, 2012, 541). The 2016 platform makes it pretty clear that the GOP believes (1) if anyone is going to cost-internalizing taxes, it should be the states (Platform 18, ; (2) using market-based solutions to environmental problems are better than direct government involvement, such as programs like those created by the Department of Agriculture, which "have led to reduce erosion, improved water and air quality, increased wildlife habitat, all the while maintaining improved agriculture yields" (Platform, 18); and (3) passing bills that modernize energy technology in way that is much more economically responsible as the US determines when and how it will transform to use other sources of energy (Platform, 19). HoldingAces (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you're not permitted to simply ignore sources based on your personal beliefs. That you personally believe the semantic change in the platform to be significant is of no consequence to how we write this article. If reliable sources have changed their interpretation, then cite those sources. You're attempting to replace the reliably-sourced interpretations of the issue with your personal interpretation, and that's not what we're here to do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? That makes no sense. I can just as easily say, "Unfortunately, you're not permitted to simply [rely on] sources based on your personal beliefs. That you personally believe the semantic change in the platform to be [in]significant is of no consequence to how we write this artilce. If reliable sources have changer their interpretation, then cite those sources." HoldingAces (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Denying the unambiguous scientific consensus that climate change is primarily and significantly driven by anthropogenic carbon emissions is denying climate change, because it's denying our responsibility for it, and hence pretending that we cannot do anything about it. That's very convenient for the multi-billion-dollar fossil fuel industry, but it's scientifically false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * IN US politics, the term "climate change" is shorthand for measures to deal with climate change. In science, "climate change" is shorthand for a lot of findings of scientific studies." Politicians do policy, they do not do scientific research.  "entire GOP" does not mean 100% of the voters.  In common political parlance it means 90% of the policy decisions in COngress, White House, GOP-controlled agencies etc are against the proposals to deal with climate change.  If a political party actions are overwhelmingly anti dealing with XYZ then it's an anti-XYZ party. Note that's what politicians promise to do, and they do it. Rjensen (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Page protected to stop edit warring (March31st)
I've protected this page rather than issue some blocks in the hopes that the edit-warring parties can come to a reasonable agreement. ,, , and , please attempt to come to a consensus by discussing the changes in question without revert-warring each other back and forth. The article has been a mess for a week, and at least one block has already been given out. Failure to drop the stick now will likely result in more. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 11:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent. User:Snooganssnoogans, can you please cite Wikipedia policy to back up your position? I’ve cited WP:INTEXT, do you have anything to back up your position? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 12:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Snooganssnoogans, you wanted a talk page discussion and you have it. Are you going to give an answer - or since you can’t be reverted now, are you just going to ignore it? That seems like a bad faith way of editing. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 00:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Seeing as User:Snooganssnoogans has no plans on discussing things in the talk, apparently, despite his request for a discussion, I plan on re-adding my content when the protection period is over. I would hope he does not continue to start edit-wars. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 00:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already explained my position several times on this talk page and in edit summaries. You do not have support to change this long-standing content. If you believe there is a hidden consensus in favor of your change that is for some reason not apparent on this talk page, feel free to start a RfC to get wider community input. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You have not given policy-based reasons for anything and have only reverted while making claims. You must clearly lost interest in this page now that you can't revert whatever you want, and I think it's only my comment about re-adding that brought you back.
 * I'll ask you for the zillionth time: what policy can you cite, with a page or some sort of proof, that directly-quoted content should not be attributed to an author? WP:INTEXT is very clear that direct quotes require attribution. Simply insisting something exists without proof doesn't make it true. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 01:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "WP:INTEXT is very clear that direct quotes require attribution." I have always agreed that the NY Times should be attributed. There is nothing in WP:INTEXT that says the specific reporters at a news outlet should be attributed, as opposed to the news outlet. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Page stalker coming over from help desk. I don't have a horse in this race but want to point out that it's not common for a publication to be named in an article, unless it's unique, groundbreaking coverage, but it's even more uncommon for individual reporters be named, besides in the sources.  If there's a good reason, that should be spelled out in the text, rather than leaving puzzled readers to make their own interpretation of why the name(s) are there. These aren't opinion pieces - it's news properly reported and under an editor's eye. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The quote in question is a direct quotation from the article; some form of attribution is required. If it were to be modified to not be a direct or indirect quote, the issue would be resolved. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 23:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2019
Hello, I would like to add Republican Party's party logo to Political Party Infobox at the beginning of the article, the specific image being File:Republicanlogo.svg(from Wikipedia Commons). Al Gore2020 (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The red, white, and blue elephant is shown in the section Name and symbols which mentions that it is still a primary logo for many state GOP committees. The red elephant appears to be the current logo. – Þjarkur (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Question
Is there a page for stating political opinions? ThePRoGaMErGD (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ThePRoGaMErGD, some Wikipedia editors state their political opinions on their user pages. Otherwise, no. SunCrow (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Justification for blocking of Merrick Garland
Should the text in bold be added to the article: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * McConnell's refusal to hold hearings on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland during the final year of Obama's presidency was described by political scientists and legal scholars as "unprecedented", a "culmination of this confrontational style," a "blatant abuse of constitutional norms," and a "classic example of constitutional hardball." Senate Republicans justified this move by pointing to a 1992 speech from then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Joe Biden; in that speech, Biden argued that hearings on any potential Supreme Court nominee that year should be postponed until after Election Day. Biden contested this interpretation of his 1992 speech. 

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose. There are two problems with this text: (1) This political rhetoric 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. (2) The GOP rationale is misleading/false and it's too in-the-weeds to get into why this is misleading. In short, (a) Biden did not block anyone (unlike the GOP), (b) this is a statement by a single Senator (unlike action by the GOP), (c) Biden's speech was way later in the election than when the GOP blocked Garland, (d) there was no Supreme Court vacancy, (e) there was no nominee under consideration, (f) the Democratic-led Senate never adopted this as a rule,, and (g) Biden did not say the nomination should be given to the winner of the presidential election (what the GOP did), only that it be done after the election... per PolitiFact, "Based on Biden's words, it appears he would not have objected to Bush nominating someone the day after election day. It would have given the Senate more than two and a half months to vote on confirmation." My arguments here are mirrored by this peer-reviewed book chapter (pages 162-163), which essentially calls the "Biden rule" nonsense. Ultimately, the so-called "Biden rule" is a faux rationale, and the GOP has already dropped this faux rationale. If this text is to be included (which I don't think it should), then all of this context should be included, as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose . The behavior was unprecedented. That is something that should be included in an article that is the overview of a political party. Why they thought it justified is for the articles on the nomination or about the specific time frame but it inflates this article unnecessarily. If that part is removed, the rest can be merged to the previous paragraph. Regards So  Why  20:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, fair enough, we could shorten the statement. We could just simply state they opposed his nomination and that's it. But if we're going to start providing opinions about it and quoting people then you need both sides. In fact, the whole subsection entitled "Democracy" would be better off deleted and leave the criticisms of Gingrich and McConnell to their respective articles. The way it written now is to imply that Republicans oppose democracy.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you, Rusf10. I agree 100%. SunCrow (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support We're not here to make judgements about whether the Republicans had a good reason or not. We simply document the reason that they gave. By leaving this out, it implies that they gave no reason at all which is an WP:UNDUE issue since we're only providing one point of view.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "By leaving this out, it implies that they gave no reason at all" - I don't think anyone reading this will assume that Republicans didn't give reasons why they did it. Readers are not idiots. This whole article, and many more articles, are full of positions held by individuals and parties without delineating whatever reasons they presented for those positions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The concerns of the nominator stink of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The text notes exactly two things: the justification Republicans used, and Biden’s response saying he was being taken out of context. The Republican rationale is undeniably notable, as is Biden’s response, so both are included. There is nothing deceptive or contradictory here. The nominator’s stated rationale simply doesn’t make sense or hold up logically. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 21:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The Republican Senate leadership used Biden's 1992 speech as justification for their position. This is reflected in contemporaneous reliable sources, such as the Politico and NYT articles cited in the nomination and it is mentioned again in the NPR retrospective that was written in 2018. During the 9 or so months that this controversy was raging I would bet I read at least 50 articles that discussed Republican's use of Biden's words as their justification for their position. The "Biden Rule" was the main defense Republicans used for their position and much of the WP:WEIGHT of coverage was dedicated to debating the validity of this defense. SWL36 (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, as per the reasoning set forth above by Rusf10, <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>, and SWL36. SunCrow (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Rather non-neutral, coatracky, and off-topic. Biden is not a member of the Republican Party and this strays too far away from the subject of the article, places undue weight on the Republicans' explanation, and places undue weight on the Biden's words, when the Republicans' explanation was never specifically about Biden. The better way to handle this is by saying something like, "Senate Republicans contended that the move was justified by actions contemplated by Democrats in 1992." This has the benefit of avoiding the unencyclopedic argument-counterargument-countercounterargument rabbit hole. R2 (bleep) 16:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Conditional support - If the context given by Snooganssnoogans (a) to (g) is also included, then I would support this addition. I trust SWL36 when they say that there was coverage. Then let's cover it, with context. Here's what I would write: "Senate Republicans justified this move by pointing to a 1992 speech from then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Joe Biden; in that speech, Biden argued that hearings on any potential Supreme Court nominee that year should be postponed until after the Election Day; Biden contested this interpretation of his 1992 speech. At the time, there was no vacancy, no nominee, no action taken, and the delay argued for was only until after the next president-elect was determined, and not as McConnell decided, until after the next president began his term. Any version mentioning Biden or these arguments without the bolded text gets an Oppose from me. starship.paint ~   KO   15:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The initial text presents external academic analysis. It would hardly be NPOV to add a disputed or misleading one sided political rebuttal. If we're going to muck-up the academic review by adding claims by politicians then we need actual and substantive inclusion of the claim that Republicans were misrepresenting what Biden said. If the proposal were to pass we would need to add something vaguely along the lines of Starship.paint's proposal. Alsee (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you can seriously say the proposal is "one-sided" when it specifically notes that Biden rejects their explanation. How can that be any more clear-cut? This isn't a scholarly analysis - it's literally explaining the party's explanation (undoubtably notable) as well as the rejection by the one person whose opinion on his own remarks matters most. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 00:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The text falsely presents this as a dispute between partisan actors (the GOP and Joe Biden) when it's instead a dispute between Republicans and reliable sources. The text lends credence to the Republican explanation, and makes it appear as if their action was not unprecedented (despite scholarly assessments that it was). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Except it isn’t, because multiple reliable sources including the New York Times have explicitly mentioned Biden’s speech. There’s no dispute between Republicans and reliable sources here, because reliable sources covered the dispute. Not including the Republicans justification for what Republicans did here makes it, inaccurately, seem like they justified their action by saying “jk lol, no SCOTUS picks for you”. It’s denying readers information. The material included here accurately covers the entire issue: Republicans justified it by saying Biden made a rule, and Biden and scholars disagreed. Not sure what the “conflict” is there. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose (via FRS) - The description of Biden's speech should not be given in Wikipedia's voice because that is NPOV, given that many sources contradict that interpretation. I also concur with others who think that academic sources should be given precedent. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Moving from descriptions in high-quality academic sources to just as much content based on news coverage of a talking point may make sense in some contexts, but for a succinct brief summary in a broad article seems unnecessary. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 21:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - per reasoning given by <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>. Gives background for action. That said, it can be argued that the entire paragraph should belong in a sub-article, or an article specific to the history of nomination and senatorial confirmation of Supreme Court justices and not in this article at all.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 21:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – If we include a detailed explanation of this incident, we must include arguments from both sides. Alternately, I'd be fine with removing all of the justifications, and simply stating that Republicans opposed Garland based on the presidential election calendar. — JFG talk 09:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: Even as editors here are ludicrously arguing that this some kind of principled Republican position, the GOP Senate leader is saying that there is no such rule: "In reversal from 2016, McConnell says he would fill a potential Supreme Court vacancy in 2020". There is no way this can be covered unless all the reasons why there is no "Biden rule" are covered as well, plus the fact that the GOP discarded this non-existent rule as soon as it was convenient. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Update x2: A new expert assessment in the Columbia Law Review describes the blocking of Garland as "unprecedented". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m gonna call bullshit on that source, which reads like an opinion piece (unsurprising, given the author is a writer at Slate) and makes several false claims, including that the 2018 Georgia Governor election was rigged.
 * And again, including the claimed Republican position and Biden’s refutation is not “arguing that this [is] some kind of principled Republican position”. You’re more than welcome to add what McConnell said about that now, in fact. There is no reason not to include the claimed Republican position, Biden’s rebuttal, and the later Republican shift from this position. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 12:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The author, Jed Shugerman, has a PhD in History (specialty: legal history) from Yale and is currently a Professor of Law at Fordham University. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * None of that excuses the fact that it is basically an opinion piece and has blatant factual errors. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per R2 and StudiesWorld. Undue weight on Biden's words and starts to stray from the topic matter, plus the language is not NPOV and should'be be given in wikipedia's voice. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Under ideology box, should we include anti-communism?
It's been heavily reported, and there seems to be heavy coverage that the party by and large is an anti-communist and even anti-social democratic party.


 * America Sees Red: Anti-communism in America, 1870s to 1980s: a Guide to Issues and References
 * Conservatism in America
 * Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party
 * The Cold War Red Scare, McCarthyism, and Liberal Anti-Communism
 * McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare

Quidster4040 (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you included, make sure that it clearly only applies to the years before 1945 . However once Truman became president, the Democratic Party was equally and perhaps more active in its anti-communism. It was Truman Who set up loyalty oaths, introduced anti-Communist foreign policies such as the Truman doctrine, containment of the USSR, NATO, and the Korean War.--Meanwhile the Republican Party had a strong isolationist element that wanted no such involvement-- typified by Senator Robert Taft. After McCarthy collapsed in 1954, there was little or no partisan difference in terms of anti-communism. Rjensen (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Not currently, Quidster4040. During the Cold War (1946-1991), yes. SunCrow (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Rjensen, are you sure there was little or no partisan difference in terms of anti-communism after 1954? (See https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-thiessen-democrats-russian-hawks-0726-story.html, https://www.bostonherald.com/2018/01/21/carr-russia-scandal-the-left-knows-of-the-real-one/, and https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/01/16/Glenn-slams-Reagans-Russia-speech/7395443077200/.) SunCrow (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "However once Truman became president, the Democratic Party was equally and perhaps more active in its anti-communism." The First Red Scare (1917-1921) and the persecution of suspected communists were mostly instigated by Woodrow Wilson and his Democratic government. His Republican successor Warren G. Harding is instead credited with ending this anti-communist hysteria: "too much has been said about Bolshevism in America. It is quite true that there are enemies of Government within our borders. However, I believe their number has been greatly magnified. The American workman is not a Bolshevik; neither is the American employer an autocrat." Harding's so-called "return to normalcy" in part translated to releasing political prisoners: "Harding released 23 other war opponents at the same time as Debs, and continued to review cases and release political prisoners throughout his presidency. Harding defended his prisoner releases as necessary to return the nation to normalcy."


 * (Personal aside). I don't know what they are teaching in schools in the United States, but at school in Greece I was taught about Wilson's ideology-fueled persecutions and the martyrdom of Eugene V. Debs. Dimadick (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Debs --When the United States Had officially declared war on Germany --was inciting young men to not register for the draft--That's what he was convicted of. It was a crime for a young man to not register. Rjensen (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Republicans have a mixed record on and I communism since 1920. Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover did not make it a priority. The anti-communism of Joe McCarthy in the 1950s is pretty interesting. It was directed not at the Soviet Union. It was directed at the US State Department and the Defense Department. McCarthy had a lot of support from Catholic Democrats, like the Kennedy family. McCarthy in 1953-54 went on and on about how a communist oriented American dentist had been promoted to major by the Army. That was his downfall – Eisenhower could not tolerate attacks on the US Army and he moved to demolish McCarthy. (Senator John Kennedy, by the way, did not vote to censure McCarthy). It was the Democrats who came up with ideas like the Truman doctrine and NATO and The Korean War. A very powerful element of Republicans, led first by Hoover and then by Taft, were isolationist with regard to the communist threat in Europe. Eisenhower (who was selected by FDR to lead Allied forces in Europe, and by Truman to lead NATO), fought and defeated Taft for the Republican nomination in 1952. Eisenhower was anti-Communist, and he worked very well with the Anti-Communist Democratic leadership in Congress (Speaker Rayburn and Senate leader LBJ). The next Republican President Nixon is most famous for seeking and achieving a degree of detente with both communist China and the Soviet Union. Nixon's leading opponents on foreign policy were Democrat Senator Jackson and Republican Governor Reagan. Jerry Ford and Kissinger supported détente, and Reagan was first anti-Communist in 1976 ( he relied in part on Senator Jackson's hard-liners) . However please remember that for defeated Reagan for the Republican nomination in 1976-- the GOP had a choice and it turned down the anti-cam communist candidate. The second Cold War started up when Democrat Jimmy Carter reacted against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Reagan continued it and indeed escalated the anti-communism until about 1986 or so, when he suddenly reversed positions -- to the alarm of the anti-Communist Republicans--and became a dear friend of Gorbachev at a time when Gorbachev was a dedicated communist. In a word, the Republican Party has a mixed record of anti-communism-- as do the Democrats. At the presidential level I think the anti-Communist record of Wilson, Truman, Kennedy Johnson and Carter is really strong==But not FDR. On the Republican side you have anti-communism under Eisenhower and the first 5 years of Reagan's 2 terms.  I see little anti-communism in presidencies of Harding,–R, Coolidge-R Hoover-R, Nixon-R [when he was president], Ford-R.  Rjensen (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Biden rule?
I moved the scholars' debate about the "Biden rule" to the much more appropriate article Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination -- The "Biden Rule" -- if it exists--is deals with a Democratic Party policy not a GOP policy. In any case it's too microscopic for this essay which has to cover dozens of topics in limited space. Rjensen (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If we're going to cover the Biden rule as a justification to block Garland, then it's important to cover what RS say about the rule (i.e. the fact there is no such rule). We wouldn't say "X claimed that Barack Obama was not born in the US" in X's article and then demote text clarifying that Obama was indeed born in the US to a separate Birtherism article. Either we cover the Biden rule with the context provided by RS or we do not mention the Biden rule (which is not a thing) at all. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

National Conservatism as one the factions?
Under the ideological factions, should National Conservatism be added as a faction? A few sources would support it i.e, https://www.vox.com/2019/7/17/20696543/national-conservatism-conference-2019-trump. It would be more difficult to find scholarly sources, as this is a relatively new development. In addition, on the National Conservatism article, the Republican Party is already mentioned, but wanted to get some consensus before a change is made. Rapmanej (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s not a major faction or even a minor faction or real ideology in the party. That conference was more or less an attempt to make an intellectual identity behind Trumpism. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>. SunCrow (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)