Talk:Republican Party (United States)

Should we add the number of House delegations to the infobox?

The number of House delegations is relevant if the Presidential election ever goes to the House, where the vote is by state delegation. Although that hasn't happened for two centuries, any time a discussion comes up, the number of state delegations controlled by either party is relevant. It would be handy to have a quick reference.

Currently, the GOP controls 26 delegations, the Democrats control 22, and 2 are tied (Minnesota and North Carolina): https://projects.propublica.org/represent/states

Obviously, those numbers could change in the 2024 election, but it's still helpful to have some quick idea of the standings of the two parties in the House for presidential election purposes.

I would suggest adding that info to the infoboxes for the Republican Party and for the Democratic Party. The infobox template allows for 11 seat templates; 8 are currently in use, so the delegations could be added. I would suggest adding them under seats2, and then re-numbering the other entries from the Governors on down:

For this page, it would be:

seats3_title = House of Representatives delegations

seats3 =

26 / 50

For the Democratic Party page, it would be:

seats3_title = House of Representatives delegations

seats3 =

22 / 50

I'll add a note to the Talk page for the Democratic Party, but suggest that we keep the discussion here. I don't know if a formal RFC is needed? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

A week went by, with no comments, so I've added the delegations to the infobox Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

No & I've removed them. US presidential contingent elections are extremely rare. Therefore pointing out how many delegates would vote in such a rare election, seems out of place. GoodDay (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Alternative demographic paragraph for readability

"As of the 2020s, the party's strongest political support is among Americans who live in rural, ex-urban, or small town areas; are married, men, or White; are evangelical Christians or Latter Day Saints; or who are without a postgraduate degree. While it does not receive the majority of the votes of most racial and sexual minorities, it does among Cuban and Vietnamese voters"

I think the above paragraph does well in stating some core GOP voting groups but doesn't necessarily have a smooth read. I'm recommending a neutral, smooth sounding explanation that borrows much from the previous answer, but incorporates a more flowing, readable paragraph for the reader.

"As of 2020's, the party wins Americans who geographically reside in ex-urban, rural and small towns, while the suburbs have proven competitive between both parties. Demographically, the party draws largest support from White Americans, particularly White men but also majorities of White women, along with Cuban and Vietnamese voters while also winning married voters, religious Christians such as Evangelicals or Latter Day Saints, military veterans and voters without a college degree"

I did add "military veterans" as part of the GOP coalition. They are 10-13% of the electorate of any given election and a core voter group.

Exit polls for Midterm Election Results 2022 | CNN Politics (2022 Exit polls, Veteran section)

National Results 2020 President Exit Polls (cnn.com) (2020 Election exit polls, Veteran section)

Trump draws stronger support from veterans than from the public | Pew Research Center (2019)

Veterans’ support for Trump strong, poll shows | PBS NewsHour (2018)

Exit Polls 2016 (cnn.com) (2016 exit polls, Veteran section)

Veterans are voting Republican. And that’s not likely to change. - The Washington Post (2014)

Military Veterans of All Ages Tend to Be More Republican (gallup.com) (2009)

Veterans Solidly Back McCain (gallup.com) (2008)

Poll Finds Strong Support for Bush in U.S. Military - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (2004)

I wanted to share this and hopefully come to a consensus! Thanks Sufficient half (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It needs further revision in my opinion:

1. I oppose the phrase "religious Christians," as Catholic voters are split, as a majority voted for Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020 for example. I would stick to just saying evangelicals and mormons (LDS church).

2. I don't think the suburbs need mentioning, as this is about the Republican party's core voting blocs, not swing voters.

3. I would split the sentence on race & gender--White Americans (especially men), Vietnamese & Cuban voters--from the one on other characteristics--married voters, religion, military veterans, and voters without a college degree. I would make that two sentences. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I would do it this way: "As of the 2020s, the party derives its strongest support from rural voters, evangelical Christians, men, and white voters without college degrees". I would take out the first sentence of the final paragraph of the lead, which begins, "The Republican coalition comprises..." That sentence is questionable at best. I would also take out the final sentence of that paragraph. The Log Cabin Republicans are hardly mentioned in the article body, and the College Republicans and the NFRW are not mentioned in the article body at all. MonMothma (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I would cite the following sources: [1], [2], and [3]. MonMothma (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Seeking consensus

The final paragraph of the lead includes two questionable sentences. The first sentence of the paragraph reads, "The Republican coalition comprises business interests, affluent voters, and religious traditionalists". A recent journal article is cited, and it is behind a paywall, so I cannot access it to see whether it supports this characterization. In any case, the sentence is outdated and incomplete. Given the recent tension between the GOP and big business (see [4] and [5]), given the well-documented blue-collar support for the GOP in recent years, and given that the 2020 presidential election exit polls show affluent voters having split 44%-44% between the Democratic ticket and the Republican ticket, I question the accuracy of stating that business interests and affluent voters are part of the Republican base. I would replace the sentence with the following: "As of the 2020s, the party derives its strongest support from rural voters, evangelical Christians, men, senior citizens, and white voters without college degrees".[6][7][8][9] This sentence is up to date and is far more complete.

I would also edit the final sentence of the last paragraph of the lead, which reads, "The Republican Party is a member of an international alliance of centre-right parties and has several prominent political wings, including a student wing, a women's ring, and an LGBT wing." The Log Cabin Republicans are hardly mentioned in the article body, and the College Republicans and the National Federation of Republican Women are not mentioned in the article body at all, so I would end the sentence after the word "parties".

Per the hidden text above the final paragraph of the lead, I am seeking consensus before making these edits. MonMothma (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The journal article is accessible through the Wikipedia Library. Other than that, your proposed change seems fine to me. Wow (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I have made the edit set forth above in regard to the Republican Party's base. MonMothma (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Veterans Helm Removal

If you ctrl+f “veterans” the Republican Party of the United States has a single line with the community mentioned as being giving to them. Historically, this is changing. Firstly, a good sum of Republicans voted in a landslide against the Honoring our PACT Act of 2022 and continue to be anti-cannabis despite publications such as the Disabled American Veterans releasing articles that specifically state that Veterans need Cannabis available to them. The article is here: https://www.qgdigitalpublishing.com/publication/?i=795007&p=7&view=issueViewer

In addition to this, Matt Gaetz is (on paper) the politician from the Republican Party that was pushing for legalization but 3 times voted for speakers that were against the medicine/plant. This and Vivek’s recent vote against Ohio legalizing, puts the Republicans and Veterans at odds, not in friendship.

Did the Republicans develop a “VA” in the 80’s? Yes. Do Republicans like to use the word Veterans? Sure do. But, I when they vote, they hurt Veterans. Please reflect this in the article. Twillisjr (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Twillisjr It's difficult to respond to "please do something about this". See WP:SOFIXIT. Do you have specific changes you would like to see to this article? 331dot (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

331dot: Lots of ways to go about this. I brought it to the talk page so other editors could discuss. Twillisjr (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I would just remove such content if necessary, because Wikipedia is not a place to right wrongs and the purpose of this article is to cover the Republican Party in general, not specific laws or contemporary political issues--there are plenty of other articles for that.

For example, there are numerous articles on cannabis/marijuana, including medical marijuana and its benefits for veterans. There is an article from the "Honoring our PACT Act of 2022" on that specific law. There are articles on the VA (veteran's affairs) and the U.S. military (including veterans). If it's not broad enough and can't be written from an NPOV (neutral point of view, I believe it shouldn't be included. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

"can't be written from an NPOV" NPOV means to accurately summarize what the sources say on a topic. We can not claim NPOV when we have not even identified relevant sources. Dimadick (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Republican Platform NPOV (Neutral Point of View) in the Header

I revised the paragraph in the header on the Republican Party's platform, because it clearly violated the NPOV policy--neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a place to right wrongs or advocate for social change, but instead to provide information from a neutral point of view. I moved this section to a paragraph on the Republican Party's platform on labor unions & the minimum wage for now, so a consensus can be found on whether to include this information from a neutral point of view. I particularly deleted the following sentence--

"[The Republican Party] opposes labor unions, universal health care, universal child care, and paid sick leave."

It's one thing to cite the Republican Party's opposition to such policies, but to put it in the header with a non-neutral point of view and tone so as to stoke outrage and denigrate the Republican Party is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Regardless of how one feels on such issues, and whether or not the Republican Party's platform is say plutocratic (benefitting the rich) or not doing enough for average Americans, this is not a neutral point of view.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Opposition to labor unions, same-sex marriage, and universal healthcare are central tenets of the Republican platform. What aspect of it is a violation of NPOV?

I removed the "paid sick leave" and "universal child care" parts, however. KlayCax (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll support leaving labor unions and universal healthcare, while excluding same-sex marriage, paid sick leave, and universal childcare.

The Respect for Marriage Act was signed in 2022 and received partial Republican support, and polling indicates a majority or near-majority of Republican voters support same-sex marriage.

I'm not sure whether even Democrats support universal childcare--does that mean government funding for all families to receive childcare, the government providing childcare itself (i.e. Head Start) to all families that can't afford it, etc.? If you have citations, you can add that. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Saying what the GOP opposes is not denigrating if they openly campaign on their opposition to them. TFD (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have citations for them? The only citation after the sentence is a biography on Karl Marx (added here): .

If so, I could support adding them, but the Republican Party doesn't campaign on them so much as focusing on other issues (i.e. immigration control, abortion, gun rights, etc.). I added two citations on the Republican Party focusing on "culture wars" rather than their opposition to such policies (added here): JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The lead i.e. the part of the article that you edited, is a reflection of the article body e.g. the part about labour unions stems from the section titled "Labor unions and the minimum wage", emphasis mine. If you aren't aware of that, and since you do not seems to understand Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I suggest you inform yourself about Wikipedia's practices before doing further edits. Cortador (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The Republican party has campaigned on right to work, ending Obamacare and marriage is between one man and one woman. TFD (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"it clearly violated the NPOV policy" Have you even read the policy which you cite? It does not mean that we have to present a positive image of the party. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

• • "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." Dimadick (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  OP seems to be (yet another) editor who assumes that NPOV means "nice and not nice things equally" instead of "include stuff based on its focus in reliable sources about the topic". Cortador (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  I provided reliable sources about the Republican Party, especially its elected officeholders, supporting policies that mainly benefit the extremely rich (top 1%) and the Republican Party's evolution from the time of Lincoln to Trump (1860-2020). I don't think the Republican Party needs to be portrayed favorably, but I also don't think its economic platform needs to be viewed as inherently worse compared to the Democratic Party (see that article), unlike on issues such as voting rights or attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

  For example, there are numerous polls this year showing that a majority voters believe the economy pre-COVID was better under Trump than the post-COVID economy under Biden. There is also the 2021–2023 inflation surge, which many voters believed Biden and the Federal Reserve were late to pick up on and the rise in interest rates has led to higher rates for mortgages and other loans. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Look at the Democracy one, I find this inconsistent

Above as I want to mention. 2001:EE0:4BC3:23D0:74A5:B633:51B2:265D (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The lead do not suit the style written in the Democratic Party. 2001:EE0:4BC3:23D0:74A5:B633:51B2:265D (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This article isn’t obliged to reflect the Democratic Party article, instead it must reflect whatever the sources say. — Czello ^(music) 14:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

One of two major, not one of the two major or vice versa as consistent as Democratic Party (United States). 2001:EE0:4BC7:AB30:B58E:E5C:90B0:54BE (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I apologise, I misunderstood what you were saying. However, I don't think there's an issue with the lead saying "one of the two major" – again the articles don't need parity. — Czello ^(music) 11:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

No, the article 'Democratic Party (United States)' says: One of two major..., look carefully at the lead of that context. 2001:EE0:4BC7:AB30:74A5:B633:51B2:265D (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed this by adding "the" to the lead of the Democratic Party page. "One of two" implies that there are other major parties in the US. There aren't. Whether there should be is a separate question. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding Trumpism to the ideology section of the infobox by putting it in parentheses next to Right-wing populism

Trumpism has been described as the "American version of the far-right" or "right-wing populism." The page for Trumpism itself lists sources for how Trumpism has "became the largest faction of the Republican Party in the United States." I find it a bit odd that Trumpism is not mentioned as an ideology in the infobox. I would suggest potentially by putting it in () so it will say: Right-wing populism (Trumpism). BootsED (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

"became the largest faction of the Republican Party" There are other faction in Trump's party? That would be newsworthy. Dimadick (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Listing it as Right-wing populism (Trumpism) would be appropriate imo. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Best to not add, as that's not the history of the political party. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, this is for the ideology section of the infobox. I'm not sure what you mean by it's not the history of the party. The ideology section should list all the ideologies within the current GOP, and Trumpism is a large one currently. BootsED (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

we already have a long history article, with coverage of centrist GOP leaders & voters. As of Dec 2023 they are a small group rapidly vanishing. Experts now use "Trumpism" as a standard term to characterize the party Rjensen (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I still disagree with the addition, but I won't revert again. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I also don't agree with "Trumpism" as a reasonable description. It seems like a very RECENT description and likely a term recently applied to a faction that was part of the party before Trump and will be around after Trump as well. Springee (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Trumpism = Recentism??? he was just as controversial in 2015-2016 when he defeated 16 or so opponents. That's history and here are some old scholarly articles on the topics: (1) Rojecki, Andrew. "Trumpism and the American politics of Insecurity." The Washington Quarterly 39.4 (2016): 65-81; (2) Brownstein, Ronald. "The Appeal of'Trump-ism'." National Journal 9 (2015). (3) “He offers a barking carnival act that can be best described as Trumpism: a toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness and nonsense that will lead the... (Texas ex-Governor Rick Perry quoted on ABC News and POLITICO on .July 22, 2015) Rjensen (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Roughly the last 8 years, in a nearly 170-year old political party. Seems quite recent, to me. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe because it isn't an ideology but as your link says "consists of the political ideologies or political movement associated with 45th U.S. president Donald Trump and his political base." Trumpists IOW belong to a variety of ideologies. TFD (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove "Centrism" from the ideology list?

It is no secret that the modern Republican Party is rapidly abandoning centrism as an ideology--even the few remaining moderate Republicans are far more neoconservative than centrist. In light of this, I am seeking consensus to remove centrism from the ideology list. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I think there are still centrist Republicans, although I agree they are rapidly leaving the party and are much reduced in influence. Potentially moving them down the list to denote their decreased influence could be warranted assuming it could be backed up with RS? BootsED (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems logical. DN (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This non-American says that, by global standards, NO Republican person or policy could be considered a centrist. Democrats get closer, but a lot of them a bit far to the right too. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Centrist should be retained. It may not be a part of the party that gets much press these days but I don't see evidence that it simply doesn't exist any more than "centrist" Democrats don't exist. Springee (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The Republican Party is a big tent party in the American two party system. Same as the Democratic Party. We should leave centrist in the inbox as it is definitely a faction as outlined in the article. Completely Random Guy (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Unless reliable sources say that the centrist faction of the party has ceased to exist, there is nothing to discuss. It needs to stay in. MonMothma (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I want to amend my previous comment. I don't care whether we include centrism or moderate Republicanism in the ideology list as long as one of them is included. MonMothma (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Moderate Republicanism isn't centrism by any standard other than what some commentators within the USA might say. The rest of the world sees it as well to the right of centre. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Political articles use the right/left spectrum of that country, not the average of the western world. Also the rest of the world is the not the west. PackMecEng (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

A big tent party, or catch-all party, is a term used in reference to a political party having members covering a broad spectrum of beliefs. What sources say this about the current Republican Party? DN (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove. Centrism isn't an ideology, it's a position in the political spectrum. That can vary depending on where left and right happen to be. TFD (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Republican National Committee does not have much power and does not govern

Who claims the RNC has any power?? Start with Cornelius P. Cotter, and Bernard C. Hennessy, eds. Politics without Power: The National Party Committees (1964). "to quote Republican National Committee RNC "is the primary committee of the Republican Party of the United States. It is responsible for developing and promoting the Republican brand and political platform, as well as assisting in fundraising and election strategy. It is also responsible for organizing and running the Republican National Convention. When a Republican is president, the White House controls the committee. According to Boris Heersink, "political scientists have traditionally described the parties' national committees as inconsequential but impartial service providers." [Boris Heersink, "Trump and the party-in-organization: Presidential control of national party organizations." Journal of Politics 80.4 (2018): 1474–1482.] Rjensen (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The Republican National Committee governs the Republican Party, as the Democratic National Committee governs the Democratic Party. The Republican National Convention occurs only once every four years. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

false and unsourced--According to Boris Heersink, "political scientists have traditionally described the parties' national committees as inconsequential but impartial service providers." what expert rejects that consensus? Rjensen (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Note that Its members are chosen by the state delegations at the national convention every four years.[source: "At the national convention, each of the parties formally chooses a national committee, elected by the individual state parties." Steffen W. Schmidt, Mack C. Shelley, Barbara A. Bardes, American Government and Politics Today (Cengage Learning 2021) p 167.] Rjensen (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

A Republican National Convention is not the govern body of the party. That event is only put together & held about four days, every four years. PS - Why (after all these years) are you suddenly pushing to replace or delete the RNC from this page's infobox, while not attempting the same with the DNC at the Democratic Party's infobox? Not to mention the national committees at the other US political parties' infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

the GOP national convention chooses the membership of the RNC-- it also selects the party nominee, and writes the party platform. The RNC does none of that, but it runs workshops for candidates for lower office. It has lost many of the functions to the House and Senate GOP campaign committees, and in terms of $$ raising is far less important than Super Pacs. The RNC makes no major decisions, unlike the national convention. Rjensen (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, on this topic, that we should treat the Republican Party differently from the other US political parties. If this is the only party, you're pushing to make the change on? We can have an RFC on the topic, right here. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen on this. The RNC does not "govern" the Republican Party. Furthermore, other political parties don't have this box, but instead have a "Headquarters" field. And party presidents of other parties typically have the authority to appoint candidates or expel members. TFD (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If you or Rjensen want to open up a discussion (in the appropriate area) about whether or not the parameter should be changed or deleted from all US political parties infoboxes? Then find the place to do so. PS - The Democratic, Libertarian & Green parties, do have this parameter & all list their national committees as governing bodies. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

As for the Democratic Party I think the National Convention makes the important decisions, and the DNC has declined in importance steadily as Super Pacs and other organizations dominate financing and recruiting candidates for major offices. I have seen no reliable independent sources state that the DNC governs the Dem Party. As for the little minor parties I have not looked into the reliable sources on their governance--has anyone here done that? Rjensen (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Intriguing, you've sparked a notion within me. Would you consider (via a discussion in the proper location) the option of leaving the 'governing body' parameter 'vacant', in all the American political parties' infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

the consensus of experts if that the national convention governs the 3 main decisions of the GOP and Dems [ie (1) presidential nominee 2) party platform 3) composition of national committee)] . As for the minor parties they can be left vacant. (I have been paying MUCH more attention to power fights in GOP in recent years as have all the media--eg GOP in House 2023; role of Trump 2021-23) Rjensen (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Would you consider opening up a discussion (in the proper place) about 'not' showing anything in the infobox's governing body parameter, of the Republican & Democratic parties? GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

a blank suggests that reliable experts don't know the answer. But they all agree :: 1) the national committees are weak and getting weaker; and 2) agree the president governs his party while he is in office; and 3) the national convention governs when party does not have White House. Rjensen (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, I should open up a discussion in the proper place & bring up your suggestion of replacing the national committees of the two major parties, with their national conventions, which occur only once every four years. GoodDay (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I've contacted Wikipedia:WikiProject United States for more input. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Though the Democratic Party calls the DNC the governing body of the party, the word "governing" is very debatable. While the importance of the RNC and DNC have declined, they are still charged with the day to day management of both parties. It is somewhat a cyclical relationship between the National Committees and the National Conventions. Decisions are made and written down during the National Convention, and members are elected to the National Committee; the convention disbands and ends, the decisions are carried out by the National Committee until the National Committee organizes the next National Convention in four years where the process restarts.

Outside of the conventions, there are important decisions that are made by the RNC and DNC. For example, the committees set parameters for who can participate in presidential primary debates [10][11], and set the primary election schedule. This has recently caused controversy on the Democratic side [12][13]. In 2008, the DNC blocked Michigan from sending delegates to the Democratic National Convention for holding an earlier than sanctioned primary [14]. This resulted in most Democratic candidates removing their names from the ballot in the Michigan Democratic Primary since Michigan would not be able to vote on a presidential nominee. Many months later, after the primary happened, the DNC reversed their decision and allowed Michigan delegates to attend the convention. As previously mentioned, Presidents take control of their party's National Committee as the committee is the lasting functioning body that exists beyond the conventions, and the President appoints the chair of the committee [15]. Ray522 (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

governing the candidate debates? Not this year. The leader--by far--Trump--not only refuses to participate but ridicules them and holds competing events at the same time. The RNC proposed all candidates should attend if they meet cutoff points, and their proposal did not take effect. Their governance was rejected by Trump -- and the consensus of experts is that the 2024 GOP convention will ignore the rules made by RNC and nominate Trump despite his defiance of those rules. Rjensen (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I did not write that the RNC governs, nor does the RNC claim to govern. The Republican Party rules say that the RNC is responsible for general management [16], not governance. Yes, they did set qualifications for who could be involved, not demand who must show up. And yes, Trump has decided to not participate in debates. This affected candidates who did not meet the criteria. Which experts? I guess it is very possible and likely. However, they would not have to wait for the convention to change the rules. I did not see anything in the rules that say that candidates must participate in debates. But there is a part about in which debates candidates are allowed to participate, "All presidential primary candidates shall also agree in writing to appear in only sanctioned Primary and General Election debates. Any presidential primary candidate who does not agree in writing or who participates in any debate that is not a Sanctioned Debate shall not be eligible to participate in any further Sanctioned Debates" [17]. But the RNC has waived this rule for now and has released candidates to participate in unsanctioned debates [18]. So, it appears that the RNC does not need the Republican National Convention to happen to change rules. Though an argument can be made that the RNC has stopped caring about all the other candidates, so what they do does not matter. Ray522 (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Folks, we are spending a lot of time and verbiage arguing about whether three words should be included in the infobox. The issue doesn't seem to be getting resolved. If we need an RfC, we should do it and get it over with. MonMothma (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Contemporary Demographic

The contemporary demographic paragraph in the lead needs to be sourced or it should be removed. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Citations in the lead are discouraged. Everything in there appears to be sourced in the Composition section. — Czello ^(music) 14:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Czello You don’t know how many citations I have dug up to source lead paragraphs in the past. Thank you.

Elvisisalive95 (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2023

I'm offering to change the phrase "loosening gun laws" to "defending gun rights", as that's what most reliable sources and news outlets say. For example Udehbwuh (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

We shold avoid phrasings that support either side of the issue as much as possible. Simply state that the Republican party generally opposes restrictions on firearms sales and possession, including carrying them in public. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 03:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Seeking a consensus

I'm proposing to change "loosening gun laws" to a) "protecting gun rights", because the first phrase more sounds like POV pushing, since even progressive Vox calls it "protecting gun rights". b) either to "opposing restrictions on gun possession and sales" https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/5/28/23145600/uvalde-school-shooting-republicans-defend-gun-rights-nra-convention Udehbwuh (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

To me, as a non-American, "gun rights" sounds extremely POV. Remeber that this is a global encyclopaedia. "Loosening gun laws" just sounds like sloppy language. Maybe you need to be a lot more specific with what you mean. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It's two different things. GOP wants to loosen existing gun laws, and it also wants to protect a particular view of the 2nd Amendment. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to the headline? The subject of the citation doesn't seem to be about the republican party as much as the NRA, Ted Cruz and Trump, however, in the paragraph right above the section titled "Controversy over the gathering is the latest to hit the NRA" it says...

• "In 2020, a study in the Journal of Public Economics found that state-level responses following mass shootings heavily tilted toward loosening, not tightening, gun regulations. As the authors wrote: “In states with Republican-controlled legislatures, a mass shooting roughly doubles the number of laws enacted that loosen gun restrictions in the year following the incident.

DN (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"loosening, not tightening, gun regulations" I have read news articles about the topic in Daily Kos for years. So what? Mass shootings are also connected to temporarily increases in the sales of firearms. Dimadick (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of cited context in the Far Right sub-section

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

The book doesn't say, that (far right) Republicans support white supremacism. I have nothing against the source, it's valid and reliable. But saying, that Republicans support white supremacism is baseless, it doesn't appear in the book Udehbwuh (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

"But saying, that Republicans support white supremacism is baseless" - That's not what it said.

The context was... "The Republican far-right faction supports white supremacism."

See the difference?

Perhaps we need some clarification in regard to what constitutes the far-right factions of the Republican party, however, I am fairly certain the far-right (regardless of party) seems to support white supremacy. Events such as the Unite the Right rally seem indicative of this aspect. According to the SPLC, "The white nationalist movement has been greatly aided by the continued radicalization of the GOP, exhibited by the party’s embrace of racist concepts like the “great replacement,” vilification of immigrants, attacks on reproductive care and demonization of queer and trans people."

If you remain unconvinced, perhaps wait for others to chime in, or check with the WP:TEAHOUSE

Cheers. DN (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I know, that the discussion here is about far-right faction, and under "Republicans' I mean the far-right faction. But still, the book doesn't say, that the far-right faction supports white supremacism. And white nationalism and white supremacy are different things. Udehbwuh (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

"white nationalism and white supremacy are different things." How different exactly? Setting Joe Feagin's book aside, let's look at yet another example. Namely, the America First Political Action Conference. Would you say some of the Republican attendees at this event qualify as members of the Republican far-right faction? DN (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, being far-right and supporting white supremacy are different things. Not all far-right politians support white supremacy. Udehbwuh (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Where did it ever say "all far-right politians support white supremacy"?

Please point it out to us. DN (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you also familiar with the Proud Boys? DN (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Bringing up Proud Boys is meaningless, as this organization has been condemned by all mainstream political parties and news outlets. And it isn't aligned with the Republican Party Udehbwuh (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Really?... DN (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I will repeat it again, proud boys isn't aligned with the Republican Party. No party officials voiced support for the organization and multiple of them condemned it. Udehbwuh (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Repetition does not equal clarity, as far as I'm aware. DN (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No party officials voiced support for the organization... except, of course, Donald Trump, the last GOP president. Cortador (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

In the 2020 presidential debate, as far as I know, he told proud boys "stand back and stand by". And by the way, the discussion here is about, whether the far-right faction supports white supremacy. There is no point in talking about proud boys. They aren't even related to the topic Udehbwuh (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

If there's no point in talking about them, why do you talk about the Proud Boys then? Cortador (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

it's not me started talking about them, as you can see Udehbwuh (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Why did you join the conversation then? Cortador (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't clog the talk page with unnecessary discussions Udehbwuh (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Why did you join the discussion about the Proud Boys if you seem it unnecessary? Cortador (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I was asked, whether I know Proud Boys, and I answered the question. I didn't intent to engage in an unnecessary debate. That's why I proposed to stop this discussion Udehbwuh (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The book states: "Far-right Republican politicians in Congress - very disproportionally white and male - rarely will compromise on major legislative matters with moderate and liberal Democratic Party politicians. Their mostly white voter base often penalizes them for departing from an arch-conservative "party line". Indeed, these politically and racially extremist Republicans have often been backed or featured in the conservative talk radio and television commentary programs. This intentional, and frequently profitable, political polarization has resulted in the near extinction of moderate Republicans and has brought about legislative paralysis or arch-conservative legislative domination at numerous local, state, and federal government levels of the past few decades."

I'd call "racially extremist Republicans" which are also predominantly white and have a likewise predominantly white voter base "white supremacists", but I'm willing to call them "white racially extremists" instead. Cortador (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Calling them "white supremacists" and claiming that they support white supremacism is an original research. Udehbwuh (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What distinguishes white racial extremists from white supremacists? Cortador (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. With all these loaded terms, it is probably best to stick to direct quotes. Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Loaded according to whom? Cortador (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Me. Or at least, how I interpret the rules. ([19]) Instead of all this pointless bickering, why not quote directly from RS? That's the best solution to these kinds of disputes. Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing contentious about far-right politicians being white supremacists. Cortador (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

As long as you provide reliable sources for that claim, which you haven't Udehbwuh (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Cortador. I believe including an attribution to Feagin would also be appropriate, so that can be reapplied into the Far-right subsection in some manner. DN (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, considering how hellbent some editors here are on erasing that information. Cortador (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a good cut to me. That absolutely is a statement that needs lots of context. Part of the issue is the statement is presented as an absolute. While I'm sure some of the far right republicans are white supremists, claiming all are is an issue. Given the absolutist nature of the claim this absolutely needs multiple reliable sources. Per ONUS this should be out until better sourcing and consensus has been established. Springee (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, I don't see a reason for the NPOV tag. Springee (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

So you disagree that no mention of White supremacy in a section about the far right faction of the Republican party seems like a pretty big omission? DN (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

You'll need reliable sources for that claim. There is no information in the book, that would confirm far-right factions "supports" white supremacy Udehbwuh (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the book is probably just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, but that's just my opinion. DN (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I can put together an RfC... Something like this?

• "Does the far-right faction of the Republican party support white supremacy?"

Short and sweet. DN (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That wouldn't be an appropriate RfC since you haven't provided the supporting sources nor provided some sort of evidence how widely this view is supported by a range of historians (not just ones on the left). Springee (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

In hindsight, a more appropriate question might be closer to...

• "Are there elements/politicians within the far-right faction of the Republican party that appeal to white supremacy?"

DN (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That isn't a good question. As a parallel, consider this sort of misleading question. "Is there an element of the far-left Democrats that appeal to freeloaders who just don't want to pay back their student loans?" The implication in that example quote is that the Democrats are deliberately appealing to undesirable traits in order to buy votes. Your question suggests something similar with respect to white supremacy. That isn't to say a white supremist wouldn't find something appealing in say a "close the boarder" policy. However, the problem is deciding if the policy is meant to appeal to the racists or if it's meant to address what many view as a problem. Does fixing the roads appeal to the racists or to others as well? Springee (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a rhetorical question, and makes engaging with you seem absolutely pointless. DN (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

DN, I'm not trying to question your good faith in this discussion. I'm saying the problem with that question is it asks, in effect, do the WS people like this. The more relevant question would be, is this a demographic the GOP is actively chasing. The question has an association fallacy built in. As this is an encyclopedia, we shouldn't use the language of persuasion. Rather we should be clinical in how we present things. Sadly, many of the sources we tend to use are not. Springee (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Which historians "on the left"? You are using weasel words here to dilute the issue. Cortador (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be ducking the comment I made. Springee (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Which historians "on the left"? Cortador (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

You are taking a generalized statement and trying to turn it into something it wasn't meant to be. Are you suggesting that no historians/political scholars have left/right biases? Your comment suggests as much but I doubt you really believe such a view. Springee (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Which historians "on the left"? Cortador (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interested in feeding your red herring. Springee (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Then bring some less weasly than "leftist historians" as a reason to exclude content from the article. The onus is on you to do that. Cortador (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The reason for excluding that part is an impossibility to verify that information, because it simply doesn't exist in the provided source Udehbwuh (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Every time I do, you curiously stop replying - likely because you know that you don't have a case. Cortador (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I stop replying from time to time because I have other things to do? That's firstly. Secondly , you still haven't provided any reliable sources, that would confirm your claim. You stated as a fact, that the far-right faction of Republicans "support whir supremacy", though there is nothing in your book, that would confirm this. And again, "racially extremist" doesn't necessarily mean white supremacists. It's your interpretation, that you're trying so hard to push. Udehbwuh (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

And yet you have time to write this reply. But to get back on topic: What distinguishes white racial extremists from white supremacists? This is the fourth time you will dodge that question. Cortador (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No matter, what I will answer. It won't change anything Udehbwuh (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Predictably, you still can't answer the question. Cortador (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Tell us what you think is the difference or if you think they are the same. Asking the same question over and over is not going anywhere and is becoming disruptive. If you think people don't know the answer to your question just stare as much and then tell us why you think it matters. Springee (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You are the one advocating the removal of cited content from the article, and have repeatedly failed to justify why, and likewise failed to gain consensus for the removal. The burden is in you, yet you have nothing to offer but weasel words ("leftist historians"), and as soon as your flimsy reasoning faces scrutiny, you accuse others of being disruptive. Cortador (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You've been told multiple times, why that part has been removed. There is simply nothing in that book, that would confirm your unsubstantiated claim. What do you want us to prove? The absence of something, that doesn't exist? Udehbwuh (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I have provided you with the part of the book that supports my claim, and you have repeatedly failed to explain why, in your eyes, it doesn't do so, with your latest excuse being that you don't have enough time to reply. Cortador (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you to read this: WP:Verify Udehbwuh (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Which historians "on the left"? Cortador (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, I will suggest you to read this WP:Verify. It's impossible to verify your bold claim, that more looks like an original research Udehbwuh (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I have verified it, and weasly claims that the author of that book is too left won't change that. Cortador (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No, you haven't. You're just pushing your own interpretation, that is impossible to verify Udehbwuh (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What distinguishes white racial extremists from white supremacists? This is the third time I'm asking you that, and every time I do, you can't answer the question. Cortador (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

If they are the same thing, which you seem to imply, why have two terms? Why use the term the source didn't use? But that doesn't get to the issue of DUE or even if the source supports what was put in the Wiki article if, for argument sake, we say the terms are identical in meaning. Springee (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks you likewise are unable to tell me what distinguishes the two terms. Cortador (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations

Just looking at what comes up with an initial 5 minute search...

• Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project
• New Haven University
• SagePub Journal
• The New Republic
• AP News
• Axios
• NBC
• The Hill
• The Gaurdian
• Cas Mudde
• Max Boot
• Diane Roberts
• Carol Anderson
• Aljazeera
• SPLC
• WaPo
• Business Insider
• Politico
• Mark Pitcavage
• HeraldTribune(Florida)
• USA Today
• ProPublica
• James Allsup
• Mark Finchem
• Steve King
• Wendy Rogers (politician)
• Janice McGeachin
• The Nation
• ADL
• Fortune
• LA Times
• Time magazine
• Council on Foreign Relations

DN (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Please be careful with keyword news searches. That some reporter who may not be careful in their usage of "far-right" etc seems to generally support this isn't sufficient. This is meant to be a high level, zoomed out discussion of the GOP, not a case of trying to find all the dirt and pretending that represents the whole. Also, we need to be careful with things like the material described by The Hill. Political gamesmanship shouldn't be used to suggest a party is for/against something in general. This is the sort of thing that should only be added to the article after we have had historical hindsight and historical debate about what the various facts mean. Springee (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We had a scholarly opinion from Joe Feagin, and that apparently isn't good enough for you either. Please be careful not to keep moving the goal post around. Cheers. DN (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Scholars don't all agree. Presenting this as a given fact vs a claim one/some scholars requires a much higher standard of sourcing. Springee (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Wich Scholars? Cortador (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, why you are desperate to put white supremacy "support" in the far-right Republicans subsection. But the scholarly opinion doesn't confirm, that they support white supremacism. I've said that many times Udehbwuh (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. I'm not asking that we say "all far-right faction" members of the GOP support white supremacy. Not at all. My problem is that, as it currently stands, there is no mention of it, and apparently, you and Springee think that's somehow an improvement. Seems like a blatant NPOV violation to me, considering the prevalence of RS to the contrary. DN (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Do we have any direct examples of this support? Not political traps like those described by The Hill, but solid examples. Springee (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm just going to do some more cite digging and try to avoid engaging for a while...I'm not trying to say all far right republicans support white supremacy, certainly there are extremists on both sides of the aisle, but it seems wrong to try and omit any mention of them, no matter their party affiliation. DN (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

See the book quote above. Cortador (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I did. It doesn't support the statement that was removed from the article. Springee (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does. What do you think white racial extremist are? Cortador (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Your question is a red herring. Springee (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Would it not be reasonable to make improvements by adding attribution to Feagin and changing the wording to more accurately reflect the context? Otherwise removing such a source seems problematic when it's the only mention on the subject, and in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. DN (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

This presumes that Feagin's views are due. Remember, this is a very big topic thus we always need to take a zoomed out view. If we were talking about the WW2 article we would talk about battles in north Africa but it's far less likely we would discuss the actions of any particular enlisted soldier even if that soldier earned a VC or MOH. Springee (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you think white racial extremist are? Cortador (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What is your definition? Since you are going to ask perhaps you can propose a definition and we can decide if we agree. I will suggest that the definition is probably not a clear line. Springee (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you think white racial extremist are? Evidently the term isn't good enough to support my additions to the article, so state your reason why. Cortador (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing in the book, that would confirm support of white supremacy by far-right factions. "racially extremist" doesn't necessarily mean white supremacist. Udehbwuh (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

But the if we ask a red herring question enough perhaps the text of the book will change to support the removed text. Springee (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What distinguishes white racial extremists from white supremacists? I've already asked you that above. Cortador (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That is a very good question. Is it the same as trying to ascribe a difference between White nationalism and White supremacy? They are overlapping themes, so that seems a futile hair to split. DN (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Still in none of these articles it is said, that far-right Republicans support white supremacy.

1. the article is about a candidate who lost the primary

2. visited the event, no information, that the far-right faction supports white supremacy

3. no information, that the far-right faction supports white supremacy

4. for clarity: having links to white supremacists does not mean supporting and endorsing them

5. Another article is about two candidates, who lost the primary

6. The article is about some white supremacists attending events dedicated to white supremacy, no mention of the far-right faction supporting white supremacy

7.communist and qanon conspiracy theories, which trump promoted, some far-right white supremacy figures of the past. Still fails to confirm support of white supremacy by the Republican Party.

8. The whole article is about trump, doesn't even mention Congressional Republicans

9.once again, fails to confirm support of white supremacy by any Republicans

10.the whole document mentions neither Republicans, not Democrats.

11. The article doesn't even mention white supremacy or white nationalism

I suggest you to read your own references, before posting them here. None of these sources proves support of white supremacy by far-right Republicans Udehbwuh (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Your dismissive comments all fail to address the elephant in the room. DN (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

You've added a lot of sources but as Udehbwuh suggests they don't support the sentence in question. Would you mind quoting the passages you think support the sentence for each of those sources? Also, which of those are OP-Ed/commentary? I ask because at least the Fortune article appears to be (additionally that author has no other articles published in Fortune). Including the material you feel is supporting the claim helps others review it and if the source is paywalled, at least have an idea what is said. I would also note that sources like the SPLC and The Nation are probably not good sources for such claims. Yes, we can use biased sources but with care, especially when crossing the line between reporting factual claims and reporting their analysis/of evidence. Springee (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

So one of the common themes here is this... Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the United States. The sources in the list I provided above are mostly from professors and academics, not "journalists". DN (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Most of the sources you provided are journalistic articles. Some of them don't even mention the Republican Party and white supremacy at all. I suppose, you read your own references before posting them here, but most of them have no relation to our topic Udehbwuh (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I doubt you've read them. DN (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

So the SPLC is not a reliable source for what exactly? We are talking about racism, are we not? DN (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The Fortune article appeared to be written by Dr. Sara Kamali, the author of Homegrown Hate. There's plenty of better sources, that article just seemed relative and it was easy to find. DN (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Fortune isn't rated (reliable or not) AFAIK, but that doesn't make it unreliable. The Nation IS rated as a reliable source, however the writer, Jeet Heer, is mostly known as a journalist and author. DN (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, Joe Feagin is an acceptable source in your view and Udehbwuh's, correct? DN (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The book appears to be published in 2023. Do you have any reviews to show his claims are supported by at least a consensus of scholars? Not just that some agree, that a wide range of scholars with a range of backgrounds would agree. That is one of the big problems with a topic as widely discussed as a major US political party. Many things have been said about the GOP. However, if we are going to report them here it needs to be something that is widely accepted by scholars across the board. If you recall our discussion at the Southern Strategy despite some sources treating the topic as basically fact, you presented a source that made it clear that scholars don't all agree on what happened. This is likely to be another such case. A big issue is what counts as true supporting "white supremacists" vs things that are characterized as such by people who are politically opposed but may also be supported for non-white supremacists reasons. Proponents of school bussing back in the day would often present those who opposed it as racists (and certainly some opponents were) but many opposed for practical reasons. Opposition to large demographic changes can be presented by supporters of the change as "Great preplacement" racism but such opposition may be based on issues other than racism etc. If we are going to include a claim that this block of the GOP is in favor of white supremacy (or what ever term we want to use) then it needs to be rock solid support, not a gray area that sources treat as negative because it supports their conclusions. Springee (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't require academic sources to come with reviews of said sources, or the source to align with any number of other scholars of any specific background.Those are requirements entirely fabricated by you.

You are making up things to exclude Feagin's book as a source from this article, and I suggest you stop your disruptive behaviour now. Cortador (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Bring a source, that would confirm your claim then, or stop your disruptive behavior. Though you've been told multiple times, that Feagin's book can't be used for that claim, you still keep insisting on the opposite. Udehbwuh (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I've done so. You have repeatedly failed to explain why you consider the source unsuitable. Cortador (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Bringing up previous discussions from other articles here seems highly inappropriate on your part. I'm not going to mention what you tried to do at that article here, because I'm not trying to stifle the debate on the subject at hand in regard to THIS article. Moving on, you haven't answered my question as to why you believe the SPLC is not a reliable source in this case. Here's an excerpt from one of their 2022 articles. It was written by Cassie P. Miller and Caleb Kieffer, if that matters to you.

• "Hate groups, extremist activists, and one of our country’s major political parties have become increasingly intertwined since Donald Trump’s presidency began. Republican politicians now mingle freely with members of the organized white nationalist movement and employ their rhetoric more freely than at any other time in recent American history."
• "Indeed, 2022 began with a member of Congress speaking at a white nationalist event. In February, hard-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., was a featured speaker at the America First Political Action Conference hosted by Nick Fuentes, one of the country’s most prominent white nationalists and an outspoken antisemite who has repeatedly praised Hitler. Rep. Paul Gosar, R.-Ariz., Arizona Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Ariz., and Idaho Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin all prerecorded speeches that were played at the event."

DN (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing inappropriate about mentioning that a source you provided stated that scholars aren't in agreement about the topic. I'm not sure why you think that's an issue. As for the SPLC, they are, quite literally, in the business of manufacturing controversy to generate donations. Springee (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The main problem here is, that the book doesn't support @Cortador's claim. Udehbwuh (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)