Talk:Republican Party (United States)

Typo

Hi there is a typo that you made a mistake of while I googled the GOP, the Gop is in the senate minority not the majority anymore, if you have time please change that, but I perfer you to do that becuase im not a expert on wiki. Thanks

Addition of some sort of political position.

There is not yet a political position listed in the profile of the republican party. I would conclude my self that due to the paleoconservative and populist views of the republican party, the position should be considered “Right Wing”. JSPolitic (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I support this change. The American political parties have been exempt from the "political position" label for some reason. The "right wing" classification is accurate when comparing it to other political parties that have this tag. Pdequation (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

No. There is a massive text section discussing the political position of the party. Trying to summarise all that into one or two words in the Infobox will never provide anything satisfactory. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Support. The suggestion of adding the classification "Right-wing", or better yet, "Right-wing to far right" has hitherto been rejected on the grounds that it would be insufficient to describe the Republican Party in light of its long history and ideological evolution.

This, to me, seems to evince a clear Americanocentric double standard. Wikipedia has no problem with adding a classification like this to other old political parties whose ideologies have drifted over time or who encompass a large tent of differing ideologies, such as the UK's Conservative and Labour parties, India's INC and BJP, Argentina's Radical Civic Union, Namibia's SWAPO and many, many more. The idea that these terms are somehow uniquely insufficient to describe the two main American political parties to me seems like pure American exceptionalism.

The only seeming reason for this reluctance to classify the GOP as a right-wing party, if not a far-right one, is a fear of alienating American conservatives by branding the mainstream American right-wing party as something other than "center". TKSnaevarr (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Right wing populism is currently listed among the ideologies. DN (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It is, but only as one of its ideologies. "Conservatism" is currently listed as the GOP's prime ideology, but the source for that is from 2009/1995, and woefully out of date. The current GOP is primarily right-wing populist. Cortador (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I support this. It makes perfect sense to at least give them centre-right to right-wing, as I think anyone who knows about politics knows they’re right wing. For a party like the Democrats I can almost understand but I agree that the only reason it seems to be absent here is American exceptionalism. gurnechnaz (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively. The main objection to including political position is that while there is little dispute about how to order ideologies along the left-right spectrum, there is no agreement about where each one lies. For example, from left to right the historically major parties in the UK are Labour, Lib Dem, Tory. But would we describe them as left, center, right; left, center-left, right; or center-left, center-left, center-right; or say they are all centrist. All answers are correct, because they are meaningful in context. But the info-box does not have context. Besides, if we say that the Republicans are conservative to right-wing populist, isn't that enough info for the reader? Does it help them to know where Wikipedia edtiors place these ideologies on the political spectrum? TFD (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Composition Section

Originally I had some questions as to why some recently added material was considered not to be NPOV [1]. There didn't seem to be much opinion to it and I was able to easily find a cite [2] that backed it up, but then I noticed this section starts to go off topic starting at "Towards the end of the 1990s...". As far as I know, the material that was deleted is backed up by RS, however, I think this section in the article might not be the best place for it. It seems as though the material in this part of the section begins by consisting of academic commentary but then devolves into something about the 2020 election. Any thoughts? DN (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.

For anyone unaware, here is what I added:

“The Republican Party supported Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, filing more than 60 lawsuits to try to get it overturned. On January 6, 2021, 139 of 202 House Republicans (69% of the caucus) voted to overturn the election results. On February 4, 2022, the Republican National Committee defended the 2021 United States Capitol attack as an act of “ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse.”

How, exactly, was what I said “not neutral”? And if my statement was truly “not neutral,” then I would simply ask, “is there a *neutral* way to talk about the Republican Party supporting Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, and defending the Capitol attack?” Mcleanm302 (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe all of the material I mentioned falls under the Trump era and or Recent electoral history sections, respectively. Either would be better than it's current spot. DN (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thumbnail Images

US Census 2013-2017

Annual population growth in the U.S. by county - 2010s

These pics can be confusing and possibly misleading with regard to the population of republicans in the United States. I think the last Republican President to win the popular vote was Bush in 2004.

I propose adding an image that shows the population from a less biased perspective (See example image). DN (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been any other comments as to whether the images are even necessary, I believe WP:UNDUE tags for the current images in the composition section are in order. They appear misleading with regards to the general voting population in the US and do not appear to add any significant info or context to the text already in place. I'm fine with removing them or even adding additional relevant images that depict an accurate and similarly styled RS image of the actual voting populace. Please share your thoughts. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." DN (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello wonderful people, I was hoping some discussion would have occurred to avoid adding tags [3], but that's OK. I'll be back tomorrow. Cheers! DN (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I would prefer to have some discussion before making edits regarding this alleged issue, but no one seems to be for or against any changes here. My instinct is that the best way forward would be to simply add the example image I've provided instead of removing the older images, but I've been told that this article is already somewhat long by at least one other editor here. If they choose not to discuss it that is fine, but I would prefer to avoid reverts and unnecessary conflicts. Cheers! DN (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

After digging a bit more, I feel as though this might be a better alternative...DN (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm mixed on it. I'm not sure I like the proposed images but the original concern is valid. I would suggest a bold removal of the original and see if anyone protests. Springee (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

RNC = party

The infobox for this article says the RNC is the "governing body" of the GOP. The first sentence of Republican National Committee reads: "The Republican National Committee (RNC) is a U.S. political committee that leads the Republican Party of the United States." The lede of the NYT reads:

The Republican Party on Friday officially declared the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and events that led to it “legitimate political discourse,” and rebuked two lawmakers in the party who have been most outspoken in condemning the deadly riot and the role of Donald J. Trump in spreading the election lies that fueled it.

This edit reads:

In February 2022, the party censured the only two Republicans serving on the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, asserting they were participating in a "persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse."

The edit was removed on the stated basis of "The RNC = the party" and I recommend it be restored. soibangla (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, my edit was supposed to say RNC =/ party. Toa Nidhiki05 15:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Toa Nidhiki removed the edit not just once but twice, continuing his pattern of aggressive and dubiously justified reverts at this article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I have also noticed this pattern. soibangla (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

So he removed the edit twice while it’s the subject of a talkpage discussion? I don’t see the issue here. Davefelmer (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Restore edit. This is clearly important information that is sourced to a myriad of RSP-greenlit outlets. Arguing that the Republican National Committee doesn't represent the Republican Party stretches the bounds of credulity (and AGF) more than a little. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Don't restore as originally added, fix the problems first. It seems like generally good content but it should be clear where it came from. For example, the RNC is not the same as the House Republican Conference etc. Additional sources/details about the concerns in question should also be added. That said, this is a very long article so it is reasonable to ask if this is RECENT/DUE. It would probably be better to use a source which doesn't mix in so much of the author's opinions. Springee (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Text should reflect sources rather than editors' OR. It reads like Democratic Party propaganda. In fact the Democratic and Republican parties differ from parties in other countries. The RNC does not govern the party in the same way that the executive of the Liberal Party of Canada for example governs its party. The RNC for example cannot expel people from the party. It has no power over state parties. TFD (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Text should reflect sources rather than editors' OR. Yes.

The Republican Party on Friday officially declared the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and events that led to it “legitimate political discourse” – The New York Times. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Text should reflect sources It does. rather than editors' OR It doesn't. soibangla (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

If the NYT reports "the party" instead of the RNC then it is inaccurate and shouldn't be used as a RS for this claim. The NYT link provided at the opening of this discussion says, "The Republican National Committee voted to censure Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for participating in the inquiry into the deadly riot at the Capitol." which means it's is consistent with multiple sources said this came from the RNC [4][5][6]. soibangla's presentation of the NYT lead is misleading because both the article title and the next paragraph of the article say RNC. Springee (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, the proposed text is misleading because the NYT article says, "After the vote, party leaders rushed to clarify that language, saying it was never meant to apply to rioters who violently stormed the Capitol in Mr. Trump’s name". The authors of the NYT are expressing doubt in their coverage but they did make it clear that the RNC isn't saying the people who rioted or stormed the capitol were part of the "citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse." It's misleading (ie a bad edit) for us to suggest otherwise. Springee (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Springee is correct here. Toa Nidhiki05 21:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

rushed to clarify that language does not mean the NYT is expressing doubt about its coverage. Rather, it means the party was attempting to send two different messages to two different groups: the first version for Trump and his allies, then a walked-back version for everyone else when the first version received blowback. They seek plausible deniability that they really meant the first version. Some might characterize that as "spin" after a major miscalculation.soibangla (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Springee, if your concern is truly some sort of distinction between the RNC and the party as an idealized entity, then you should be happy to change (difference bolded)

In February 2022, the party censured the only two Republicans serving on the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, asserting they were participating in a "persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse."

to

In February 2022, the Republican National Committee censured the only two Republicans serving on the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, asserting they were participating in a "persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse."

Instead, you (and Toa Nidhiki) have removed it entirely. What is your justification for not mentioning this at all? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should direct this at the editor who restored disputed content. I've said what my concerns are and others have similar concerns. Ignoring that the RNC is clear they are not referring to the rioters is a NPOV issue. Do you have a proposed corrected text? At the moment I made that edit I didn't have one. Springee (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

From those cited sources [7] "The text of the resolution itself made no such distinction." [8] McDaniel said. "They chose to join Nancy Pelosi in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol. Those final words -- "that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol" -- were not in the resolution adopted Friday." [9] "Her statement notably attempted to clarify the resolution's "legitimate political discourse" language, adding the words, "that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol.". I think including her claim regarding the censure should be included within the context of what the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack does...Is there RS confirming her claim that "ordinary citizens who had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol" are being targeted, prosecuted or investigated by said committee? DN (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Though I would resist replacing GOP with RNC, your point about content being ended rather than amended is well taken and is also a recurring pattern I have seen on this and similar pages. I find such behavior by seasoned editors to be concerning as it tends to suggest an unexpressed rationale for content removal. soibangla (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Why? Sources, including the NYT, are clear this is the RNC that did this. Please remember to AGF. Springee (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It's also a matter of common sense that news media are reliable sources for what happened yesterday, not for analysis of the constitutions of political parties. In fact WP:NEWSORG specifically says that analysis in news media is rarely reliable and should be attributed in text. In this case you have to say , "According to Jonathan Weisman and Reid J. Epstein, writing in the New York Times, the Republican Party censured the two legislators." TFD (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you asserting every source we use must be qualified as to its authors? My read of NEWSORG says that opinion pieces are "rarely reliable for statements of fact" whereas "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." It's not "analysis" that Cheney and Kinzinger were censured. soibangla (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It's analysis that RNC=Republican Party. That's what we are discussing, not who was censured. TFD (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

When referring to the actual censure of anyone, it would make sense to me to specifically refer to the part of the organization performing the censure. (In this case, the RNC.) My 2 cents.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing. There doesn't appear to be any problem with "In February 2022, the Republican National Committee censured the only two Republicans serving on the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, asserting they were participating in a "persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse."" Endwise (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Considering the RNC and GOP aren't what anyone here would call mutually exclusive, and the fact that we all agree this is RS content in the body where it's supposed to be, I do not see the problem here. The RNC is THE "governing body of the GOP". DN (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• In any case, we can't have this edit warring. I've protected the article for a week. Feel free to contact me for unprotection as soon as consensus is reached. Bishonen | tålk 09:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC).

This seems to be more appropriate for the RNC article rather than the GOP one IMO. Davefelmer (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Both would be appropriate for reasons that go beyond any of our opinions. DN (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This cite seems to cover the bases... In February 2022, the Republican National Committee voted to censure two Republicans for serving in the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, asserting they were participating in the "persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse." Since then, certain House Republicans and Trump allies defended the resolution while others have refuted the description. An RNC official stated the GOP is referring to the "legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol" and claimed that the January 6th Committee is a "Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens"[10] - DN (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the question of DUE still applies to a lot of this content. This is very much in the RECENT weeds for what is supposed to be a high level article on the GOP. That said, I think this is pretty good. We shouldn't use terms like "claimed" as that implies doubt. Also there is no reason to include the ordinary citizen quote twice. Also, I think this Reason.com article is a good source here [11]. It notes that many news sources have incorrectly claimed that legitimate political discourse was referring to the rioters vs the people the Jan 6th committee is actually investigating. The article goes on to mention some of the things the Jan 6th committee is investigating and their likely motives. Taking the above I would propose:

In February 2022, the Republican National Committee voted to censure two Republicans for serving in the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, stating they were participating in a "Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse." After the initial censure the RNC released a statement clarifying that they did not include the violence at the Capitol as legitimate political discourse. Some prominent Republicans objected to the censure.[12][13][14]

This adds a bit more context and uses impartial language per SAID. Springee (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying remarks made by the RNC afterwards are helpful context. Your text looks good, though perhaps "Some prominent Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, objected to the censure." would be better as McConnell has received a significant amount of media attention over his statements. Endwise (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The article has one sentence on the amendment ending slavery, one mention of Teapot Dome and nothing on prohibition, female suffrage or Watergate, yet we have an entire paragraph explaining that the Republican Party caucus did not join the 1/6 Committee, two members joined anyway, the RNC censured them, the minority leader objected to that and different Republicans have expressed different opinions. The articles needs better focus. TFD (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

"I think the question of DUE still applies to a lot of this content" How does WP:DUE apply? The RNC chose the language in the resolution, and are dealing with criticism of their decision to do so...Not to sound like a broken record but, again, we all have multiple RS that already confirms this. "This is very much in the RECENT" WP:RECENT see WP:SUPPLEMENTAL. It's meant to help editors with less experience for less established articles to keep them from just being piles of less relevant headlines. Once again, it also focuses on using RS and determining what goes in the LEDE, not the BODY. "We shouldn't use terms like "claimed" as that implies doubt." Exactly why it was purposeful. Are there any RS confirming Ronna McDaniel's CLAIMS? i.e. "the Jan 6th committee is a democrat led cabal of satanists blah blah blah". No?... I'll wager that's a clear-cut POV CLAIM, therefore kind of a non-starter. Let's just try to avoid any possible POV from all angles. "Also there is no reason to include the ordinary citizen quote twice." Agreed. In fact, I believe the best way to go is to pare it down to it's bare essentials so we can all move on. Something to this effect...

• In February 2022, the Republican National Committee voted on a resolution to censure two Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, for serving in the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. Shortly after, the RNC received criticism regarding the language used in the resolution. RNC officials have disputed it's interpretation by critics while GOP members have had mixed reactions.[15] DN (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

My comments about DUE are in line with TFD's comment. I'm not sure any discussion of the Jan 6 Committee should be in the GOP article. Zoom out and understand this is an article about a political party that has been around for about 160 years, that is the forest that makes up this article's possible content. We are spending a lot of time describing the tree branch closest to our own faces. Understandable as it's what is right in front of us but the article should be the whole forest rather than what is in front of our noses. However, I also understand that if we accept that this content is DUE in the total article then we can at least try to agree on what the specific text should be. As for your second proposal, no, I would object to that one. The Reason source doesn't cast doubt on the claim that the RNC's resolution was meant to refer to the people being investigated by the Jan 6th committee. In this case I the extra detail and sources in my proposal (with Endwise's suggestions) provides a clearer explanation of the controversy. Springee (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It's much harder to AGF when you are busy making a WP:POINT, instead of working towards consensus...I do not condone using this talk page as a personal forum, so I'm just going to sit back and see what the community says. Cheers! DN (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If you feel the need to question good faith then perhaps I have failed to make my point clear. You questioned why I would mention DUE. Like The Four Deuces I'm not sure any of this content is DUE in the general Republican article. However, that doesn't mean we can't have a productive discussion regarding how such content is included based on the assumption it is included. I am working towards that consensus. I'm not sure how any of this would qualify as FORUM. Springee (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

DN, you struck some of your comment but have left the part about FORUM. Can you highlight what you think is a FORUM comment? Springee (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Great point TFD. There is a little too much RECENTISM/PRESENTISM in a lot of these articles.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Before anyone brings up WP:NOTABILITY Also regarding WP:DUE "The move to censure Cheney and Kinzinger marks the first time the national RNC has had a formal censure for an incumbent member of Congress backed by its members." (just under the pic of Cheney)[16] - DN (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Congress voted in a voice vote to censure Rep. David Schweikert in 2020, Speaker Gingrich was censured and fined by a vote of 395-28 vote in 1997. Sen. David Durenberger was censured by a vote of 96-0 in 1990. Presumably most Republicans supported these censures. The most famous censure of anyone in America was Joe McCarthy - but it's not mentioned in the article either. While it may be unprecedented for the RNC and should be mentioned in that article, it's not unprecedented for Republicans to vote to censure their own. Democrats do it too. TFD (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

How many of those individuals were censured exclusively by their own party for political disloyalty? soibangla (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

What does that have to do with policy, ie WP:RS? Assuming that because something similar that wasn't included "way back when..." sounds like an excuse to exclude RS and bares resemblance to Faulty generalization imo. Perhaps there was consensus against inclusion, or maybe it's just that no one brought it up, who knows. I have yet to see an argument that actually defines or explains why putting this RS in the body (not the lede) is not WP:DUE. Consensus is very important, but as far as I know, it should not get in the way of policy. If we can't agree on basic policy then that makes it almost impossible to gain consensus and improve this article. WP:SR "The bedrock of Wikipedia is reliable sources of information". DN (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

So often when we say DUE/WEIGHT we really mean PROPORTION (which is part of the NPOV policy). WP:V (policy) specifically notes that RS (guideline) is a minimum for inclusion, not a guarantee. Your concern that TFD's examples are from the past and this is contemporary is not a policy based argument. In fact it's the thing that RECENT says we should avoid. We should be giving no more weight to today's GOP than we would to the material on the GOP of 50 years ago. Anyway, PROPORTION is part of NPOV and thus is a policy concern. It is very much reasonable to ask if this material should be included at all given the article subject could fill several volumes and we are meant to summarize it (even the body is just a summary of other sources). Springee (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

"Your concern that TFD's examples are from the past and this is contemporary is not a policy based argument." My argument was referring to Faulty generalizations, not that past decisions are less relevant than the ones in the present. We should also try to avoid using Straw man arguments as well. Cheers! DN (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

From WP:DUE "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." DN (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Since there has been no further discussion or explanation as to why this isn't DUE, I'm going to share another version along with 2 more citations in case anyone want to peruse them... the conversation politico. As far as I can tell, this has already been covered by all the major news organizations, including FOX, and many of their affiliates. I still prefer to leave out any contentious POV language and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Thanks.

• "In February 2022, the Republican National Committee voted on a resolution to censure two Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, for serving in the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. While some prominent Republicans objected to the censure, the RNC received some criticism regarding the language used in the resolution which RNC officials have disputed as a misinterpretation. This marked the first time the RNC has had a formal censure for an incumbent member of Congress backed by party members." [17] [18] - DN (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not sold on DUE but I will address that at the end. What is the reason for mentioning this at all (I don't mean that facetiously)? Is this worthy of mention because it is the first time the RNC had a formal censure...? If so then let's drop the part about wording entirely. That's really only worth mentioning if we give it a bit more detail. The the Republican leadership was not fully on board is probably worth noting. But if this censure is significant per the reasons in the last sentence then it would make sense that we would add other censures to the article. Alternatively, since the article is already long and this is a detail of a detail, why not trim things down to say the RNC censured the two house Republicans on the committee and leave it at that? I do think the why is probably more significant that any claims of confused language or that this is the first time etc. Still, that gets back to the question about why we are putting so much emphasis on recent events but that might suggest removing more than just this content. I don't think your proposal is good but absent other objections I wouldn't revert it. Springee (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And I'm still not sold on UNDUE, and still no policy/guideline based explanation IMO. What is the reason for mentioning this at all (I don't mean that facetiously)? Then how do you mean it? You obviously seem confident that you are right, yet now seem somehow bewildered, as though we haven't discussed this ad nauseam through the apparent wall of text above. This has taken up a lot of valuable time, both yours and mine and anyone that has to sort through this giant mess. Is this worthy of mention because it is the first time the RNC had a formal censure...? If so then let's drop the part about wording entirely. Let me get this straight and please correct me if I'm wrong here. It seems that, now, you are only willing to even consider inclusion, as long as we don't mention any criticism that was mentioned and cited in nearly all the RS provided to you, in favor of only mentioning the historic formal censure which may have been mentioned in, I believe, just a few RS that were provided? Are you not examining the evidence that has been expounded upon specifically for your benefit? Alternatively, since the article is already long and this is a detail of a detail, why not trim things down to say the RNC censured the two house Republicans on the committee and leave it at that? Yep, that seems like what you are suggesting IMO. Maybe it's just me, I really don't know what to say at this point. I do think the why is probably more significant that any claims of confused language or that this is the first time etc. (EDIT) What do you mean by "claim" again? Almost all the "sources" are claiming it is, shall we say, confusing, but that's exactly how I worded it, as not to appear in wiki-voice. I also included that this was in fact disputed by the RNC. DN (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I usually try to just stick to policy guidelines and include all relevant info to try to avoid any appearance of cherry-picking, but maybe I should just chill out about that stuff. Still, that gets back to the question about why we are putting so much emphasis on recent events but that might suggest removing more than just this content. Is that like "begging the question"? Why we are going back to RECENTISM again? Are you arguing that because the article is "long" we should start omitting ALL reports about criticism despite being from the same RS the material that you might be willing to consider, is from? I don't think your proposal is good but absent other objections I wouldn't revert it. I feel as though we are both treating this way to much like a WP:BATTLE, and it shouldn't be. I will only add what you are comfortable with at the moment, but we may need to have an RfC. I will refer to Bishonen on that, and hope they can help guide us through this with more efficiency than we have managed. DN (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

First, I see you have added your proposed text. I don't think it is DUE but absent more than just The Four Deuces and I saying as much I wouldn't revert as UNDUE. I don't think DUE has been satisfied and as the news cycle has moved away from this story I'm more convinced that this is RECENT material. A problem with content like this is the GOP is a widely discussed topic so the fact that we have multiple sources reporting this basic news and the follow on clarification establishes that this should probably be somewhere in Wikipedia but not that it rises to the level of being due in a summary of a 160 year old political party. It is a forest for the trees and bushes question. We started with a debate regarding "is this a bush or a tree". Editors weigh in on that question but it wasn't until TFD zoomed out and asked, is this important given the topic is the forest? Few editors actually addressed that question as it was asked later in the discussion.

Your newly added text is good in that it's IMPARTIAL but it isn't clear what larger informational structure it is meant to support other than listing a current event. It implies a reason why it is included ("his was the first time the RNC has had a formal censure for an incumbent member of Congress backed by party members"). However, it wasn't included in a section about various examples of the GOP censuring members. Nor was it in a section on the GOP concerns/response to the Jan 6 commission. The current section seems to just be a historical event by event telling with no additional structure for how this is relevant to the overall article other than it happened recently. This play by play addition of reported facts/responses is a poor way to structure an article but also once that plagues Wikipedia. Far too often editors want something in an article because it makes the subject look good/bad even if it's not significant to the larger topic. If an editor can't say how content supports the larger topic then the content is probably undue for the article or they need to think more about why it is DUE. Springee (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I've revered the edit as discussion is ongoing. Clear violation of UNDUE and RECENT. Toa Nidhiki05 13:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been pinged for advice. There's a good deal of discussion, but by now not very many people discussing. Consequently any provisional painfully-allowed version between those still standing (DN and Springee) can be toppled by a single editor who takes little other part than to revert the article. (Yes, I'm referring to Toa Nidhiki05, compare [19].) In such a situation, I'm afraid an RfC seems to me the way to go, in order to get more eyes. Even if it does look depressingly like shooting mosquitoes with a cannon. Bishonen | tålk 17:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC).

I've edited this talk page 212 times, more than any editor, but thanks for the shoutout. Toa Nidhiki05 17:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

(If you're talking to me, please consider indenting accordingly.) I was referring to your input in this discussion; not to your contributions since 2011. Bishonen | tålk 08:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC).

Adding comments by former VP Mike Pence on the "legitimate political discourse" language "Former Vice President Mike Pence has defended the Republican National Committee censure of GOP Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, arguing that the resolution referring to Jan. 6 as "legitimate political discourse" was misconstrued. ABC-NEWS Feb 18...DN (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Adding source The Hill DN (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Another recent cite NBC news that may show this is likely an ongoing topic as opposed to WP:RECENT or WP:NOTNEWS. The censure resolution described Cheney and Kinzinger as “participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.” RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel later described it as discourse “that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol.” ...DN (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

As we continue the RfC, I am still having trouble getting respondents to help me to understand better, the possible connection between the content in question and how WP:RECENT may apply. So I have decided to check with the teahouse [20] to see if there are any RECENTISM experts that could possibly give me some perspective that I seem to be lacking here. I was non specific and requested that anyone answering do not involve themselves, as it would be considered a WP:CANVASS violation. DN (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC Break

I'm still struck by one a couple of the comments made in the RfC. The main problem here may be that the article is a mess, it is difficult to add notable content because there's no clear place to put it. Thus, I suggest a rework that gives a simpler and clearer outline of the history, the working parts that make up the GOP and how they were formed. Preferably a linear form with history at the top and current events at the bottom. Thoughts? DN (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

TFD, this seems like a good opportunity to start work on adding the things you mentioned as equally or possibly more important (Watergate - prohibition etc). I'm happy to work on this with you as we wait for RfC results. DN (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I have reached out to the RECENTISM project page [21] for guidance to help us figure out how it may or may not apply to this issue. Again, I asked participants not to involve themselves per WP:CANVASS. DN (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

We should agree to an outline and decide how much should be history and how much about the party today. Then we should look at sources to determine proper weight. What happens with these articles is that someone always wants to happen the latest news story. In the end I expect that Trump's legacy will be his style and that he beat the establish to win the primaries and election. But little of what he did was significant, unlike Nixon, Reagan or George W. Bush. TFD (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

No previous Republican president mobilized a mob of criminals attempting to reverse his defeat for reelection, and no previous president of either party mobilized his party's congressional delelegations to suppress investigation and/or prosecutions for that. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

See Brooks Brothers riot and Watergate. I hope that Trump runs again and the Dems put up a progressive so I can watch you do a 189 on Trump. TFD (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse the rest of us, but that's unintelligible. Could you state in plain English? SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

TFD remember that personal opinions are less relevant than what reliable sources say. It is worrisome that this is the route you keep steering talk pages towards. "Zoom out". DN (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I notice that you did not direct your remarks toward SPECIFICO. It is however a problem that we have to guess what weight the textbooks will give to what's reported in today's news. RECENTISM, which you mentioned, suggests a ten year rule. Will something we add today be important in 10 years time? We are able to discuss our opinions on this. I believe that in 10 years time, the U.S. Civil War will be considered a more important event in American history than the hooliganism of 1/6. You and SPECIFICO disagree. I cannot show you a textbook published in the year 2032, but maybe you have a reliable source that will prove me wrong. TFD (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Everyone needs to put down their WP:CRYSTALBALL. Tagging things as RECENTISM right of the bat seems like the opposite of how RECENTISM should be applied, if at all (see references to lead on the RECENTISM project page). IMO RECENTISM should usually be applied IF, after a certain period time, it seems irrelevant and UNDUE. Not immediately, as some editors seem to enjoy doing. Not to mention, most of these editors simply cite RECENTISM without any real context for said issue, which bares a striking similarity to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. I have gone as far as reaching out to the RECENTISM-project-page and even the tea house, and still no responses....Frustrating to say the least. DN (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

TFD, that is a pretty nonsense line of thinking. We have no view back from the future. So we gather evidence, we evaluate current sources vs. precedent, and we write articles that reflect our best estimate of NPOV. It's utterly useless to say that we can't write an article without being time-travelers. That's first. Second, please don't toss a straw man like "more important than the civil war" into it. If you want to write something in user space, you could invite us to come look. Surely you know you have no hint of anyone here saying that the Trump insurrection will be considered more important than the civil war in 2032. That's just a ridiculous use of this talk page. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

When you cite policies, guidelines, etc., you should take care that they are actually talking about the points you want to make. WP:CRYSTALBALL does not say we cannot consider the future significance of events when deciding to leave them out. And RECENTISM doesn't say that we have to wait for textbooks to be published before we can determine something lacks long-term significance. There would be no need for it, because by then the events would not longer be RECENT. RECENT says, "it is appropriate to be aware of balance and historical perspective." Unfortunately, some editors do not consider historical perspective because immediate events have a greater impact on them. They don't remember or forgot or never knew that Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush all attracted the same derision from Democrats as Trump. But over time, all of them were rehabilitated as the next Republican president took their place as the worst president in history. TFD (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

In the case of the Trump insurrectionist Republicans it is not a matter of derision. What's noteworthy is their goals and their tactics. BTW, I'd be interested to see sources that discuss the "rehabilitation" of Nixon Reagan and either Bush, or what you think that means. Surely you don;t mean like deniazification? Do you mean a changing consensus as to their policies in office? I'm not really aware of that either, except that I suspect it's more widely understood today the extent to which Reagan and Bush-2 were used by various interests to pursue economic and foreign policy agendas they scarcely understood. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

TFD that reminds me of The pot calling the kettle black. See WP:CRYSTALBALL - "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumption" - "Wikipedia does not predict the future." - "It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses." Cheers! DN (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I assumed you were familiar with this. Here's a link to an article in Salon by David Masciotra where he explains it. You might also be interested in his comments about Liz Cheney. TFD (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know Salon was held in high regard as far as RS goes for political topics. Interesting. DN (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Salon is rather slumming insofar as we aspire to be the best and the best informed encyclopedists, I'm afraid. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Biased Language

dronebogus Do you have a reason for reverting the edit I made to this page? I thought it was a fair edit. Lincoln1809 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

There was no reason for your edit. "Rank-and-file" is not a biased description of anybody. It simply means that they are ordinary members, not party leaders. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't think of it that way. Thanks, Lincoln1809 (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Censure of Cheney and Kinzinger

Should this sentence be appended at the end of Republican Party (United States)#The Trump era?

In February 2022, the Republican National Committee, the party's governing body, voted to censure the only two Republicans serving on the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, asserting they were participating in a "persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse."[22]

soibangla (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. This is clearly important information that is sourced to a myriad of RSP-greenlit outlets. The discussion above—in which editors first made the absurd claim that there's some big distinction between the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party, and then pivoted to the classic WP:UNDUE argument—speaks for itself. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not as phrased, maybe if done correctly Soibangla's question is not a good one. There are two issues here. First is if this information should, in any capacity, be in the article. The second is if this particular, previously disputed phrasing should be used. The answer to the second question is no. Despite editors telling Soibangla why this phrasing is problematic this is the propose text. This is misleading because it suggests the RNC (which is not the same as the larger GOP) is mad that the Jan 6 committee is going after people who broke into the capitol. However, it is clear the RNC is concerned that the Jan 6 committee is investigating people who didn't break into the capitol and is doing so for political (McCarthy like) reasons. Soibangla didn't include statements that made it clear the RNC was not referring to the people who actually broke the law. It's honestly borderline disruptive editing to ignore all the previous discussions related to the details of what is/isn't relevant then ask about this version of the text.

As for a more impartial version of the text, I'm more mixed. As I asked before, why are we including this? Are we including it because it's notable that the RNC censured members? If yes do we list other times this happened? Is this part of the Jan 6th coverage? If yes do we mention the partisan concerns about the formation and operation of the committee? As suggested a reader could view the text as a purely partisan attack since it falsely suggests something that isn't true rather than actually informing our readers. OK, beyond even that there is the question if this should be in the RNC article instead of the GOP article? As was discussed above, RNC!=GOP, this is the GOP article. Additionally several prominent GOP members were critical of this action. Springee (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, Suggest changing RfC scope Instead of the specific text we should ask if this content in general should be included and if so where and in what context. Springee (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• No. The RNC specifically stated that they did not consider the violence at the capitol to be "citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse". As written, this is untenably biased and seems just about intended to mislead people about what the RNC was saying. Endwise (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, extensively sourced to high-quality outlets as a defining event for the Republican party during that era; it's hard to see how one sentence could be undue, and this is a reasonably accurate summary of what the highest-quality mainstream sources say. The text in question makes the relation that the RNC has to the party clear. The argument that there is an alternative interpretation is not supported by the best sources. The only source that I'm seeing presented above what is plainly an opinion piece from Reason, a WP:BIASED source that mostly publishes opinion - it cannot be used to decide text in the article voice. The objection above essentially says that we should disregard or downplay what high-quality news sources treat as impartial fact because someone writes an opinion-piece at Reason disagreeing with them; this is absurd. If that opinion is due, we might include it separately, with an in-line citation, but we cannot use it to change unattributed text. I would tend to think that that level of digging into back-and-forth culture-war opinion pieces is undue and that this single neutrally-worded sentence about the censure is sufficient. --Aquillion (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Did you actually read the New York Times article which is going to be used as a source in the proposed text? After the vote, party leaders rushed to clarify that language, saying it was never meant to apply to rioters who violently stormed the Capitol... "They chose to join Nancy Pelosi in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol." Endwise (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also worth noting that while this did get a lot of "me too" coverage, this is an article about the Republican Party, one of the two major political parties in the US. As presented this is a factoid in a very long article. This is why I asked, why is this included here? What part of the larger picture is it meant to support? Aquillion suggests that because this is a single sentence it nicely balances WEIGHT. So Aquillion is basically say more than 1 sentence is too much. As was discussed prior to this RfC, summarizing this in a single sentence doesn't work since it doesn't explain to the reader why they should care, what is significant about this event. It also doesn't reasonably summarize the event itself. It fails to properly explain why reasonable people might see the GOP members on this committee as acting in what might be considered bad faith. If the full and proper context is too long (ie gives too much weight) then we shouldn't include a misleading short version instead. Springee (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  It is a strange Gordian knot to find oneself in where a short version like the one suggested above is probably too misleading to be used, and a lengthier version that explains the details might give the saga undue attention. Maybe something short tacked onto the end after a semicolon would suffice? Like ; the RNC later released a statement clarifying that they did not include the "violence at the Capitol" as legitimate political discourse. or something of the sort. Endwise (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

To your point I have previously expressed that it is better if we try to either include both aspects or neither by means of simply stating that... "the RNC received some criticism regarding the language used in the resolution which RNC officials, and certain GOP members have disputed." If the cites say that the RNC and GOP members dispute the interpretation, or misinterpretation as they say, then I don't see why we shouldn't include that along with the fact that this is the first time this type of censure has occurred. DN (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• No Springee explains it better than I can, but on top of that there are obvious concerns about WP:UNDUE weight and WP:NOTNEWS even if you do ignore the actual reality of the situation. This is about as clear-cut a scenario as you can get, really - it shouldn't be here. Toa Nidhiki05 13:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• No per WP:UNDUE. Utterly fails WP:10YT as people are not going to care about a detail like that in the long term. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, Seeing as none of us are equipped with a WP:CRYSTALBALL, could you go into some detail regarding how and why you are seemingly certain that "people are not going to care about a detail like that in the long term"? DN (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. This is a politically significant event, it shows the direction the GOP has been trending in since 2016. Political analysts describe it as an impactful event. It will certainly pass the WP:10YT as it shows how Republicans are becoming more united and pushing out the older traditional conservative generation (RINOS) that used to be its base. Some sources:
  • Loyal to Trump, Republican Party censures Cheney, Kinzinger - Al Jazeera
  • Liz Cheney’s censure underscores Republican loyalties to Trump - Vox
  • Here’s How Republicans Have Been Justifying the Censure of Cheney and Kinzinger - The Bulwark

––FormalDude talk 17:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - Well sourced information that offers important insights into the party's inner workings. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes Would be open to changing my vote based on Springee's cmt depending on what the proposed wording is. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 22:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes While I feel a consensus should have been more easily obtained, there was a genuine effort on my part to include (IMO) a more balanced version, to obtain consensus, which was again met with repeated arguments of WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE. Seeing as this could likely be an ongoing topic, and more certainly a notable event in the GOP's history, I still haven't seen enough explanation as to how those arguments apply. See NBC news cite added March 16, 2022. DN (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. What FormalDude wrote seems pretty persuasive to me. This incident received significant coverage as a noteworthy event in the party's history. The phrasing employed above looks like a fair summary of the coverage. IvoryTower123 (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• No, per this earlier explanation by TFD, and most recently by Springee in this RfC. To include it as worded is noncompliant with UNDUE, RECENTISM, and NPOV. Atsme 💬 📧 14:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

In regard to TFD's explanation "The article has one sentence on the amendment ending slavery, one mention of Teapot Dome and nothing on prohibition, female suffrage or Watergate, yet we have an entire paragraph explaining that the Republican Party caucus did not join the 1/6 Committee, two members joined anyway, the RNC censured them, the minority leader objected to that and different Republicans have expressed different opinions. The articles needs better focus." I felt it made no actual examination of the content in question, or it's merits, and bared too much resemblance to Whataboutism. I do not see how this takes focus away from the GOP, and there is no policy or guideline I'm aware of that says we are not allowed to include anything that may be construed as criticism, especially with the current amount of consensus among RS that this content continues to receive. DN (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:WHATABOUT (or "What about article x?") is irrelevant here. It says that we cannot make arguments about what should be in this article based on what is in other articles. Obviously we can discuss what is in this article here. We can decide for example that censuring two members of congress for deserves an entire section and also decide that other matters of equal or greater importance, such as abolishing slavery, giving the vote to women or prohibition need to be expanded. (I assume you think they are of equal or greater importance. Please tell me if you don't.)

To provide an example, if this article were a STUB article, that is, only one paragraph long, and we added a paragraph about the Eisenhower presidency, the article would lack weight because it would give undue coverage to one presidency. But if there were already paragraphs about the other major Republican presidents, it would be UNDUE to leave out Eisenhower.

TFD (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I referred to Whataboutism, not WP:WHATABOUT. Kind of like Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes there are other subjects that may be seen as just as important, or even more so, but that is not the current subject of discussion, therefore it has the potential to act as kind of a Red herring, not that I'm accusing you of using a Straw man, just pointing out the differences. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

If you think that Due and undue weight is wrong or a red herring because of whataboutism, then get it changed. The origin of the term, according to the linked article, was people defending the IRA by pointing out what their opponents did. But weight would require us to mention both the IRA and its opponents when discussing the Troubles in articles. That is not because we are defending the IRA, but because sources routinely mention all parties when discussing the Troubles. Incidentally, two of the things I mentioned as just as important as or more important than censuring the members of Congress - prohibition and Watergate - were arguably worse. TFD (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that those OTHER subjects could also be expanded upon or included, but how is the lack of inclusion or expansion of those OTHER subjects an argument against inclusion or expansion upon the CURRENT subject via UNDUE? Wouldn't those OTHER subjects be vulnerable to incurring the wrath of UNDUE as well if an editor found that yet another subject should take priority? It seems to run the risk of becoming a Catch-22 (logic), in which the article never seemingly improves. DN (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality means giving equal weight to things of equal importance. If for example you picked ten negative things about the party and ignored positive things that had greater coverage in reliable sources, then the result would be a biased article. It you gave weight that reflected coverage in reliable sources, whether that coverage was positive or negative, then the result would be an unbiased article.

The way to avoid bias is to read the relevant sources, read the article, and ensure that it has the same weight as the sources. The way to make an article biased is to seek to add either positive or negative information, depending on your political orientation. If your goal is to make the party look as bad as possible, then you might achieve a reliably sourced article, but one that is biased. I assume you are aware of that, but correct me if I am wrong.

Pretend to yourself that it is the year 3000, neither major party still exists, and the parties are no more relevant than those of ancient Rome. Then ask yourself whether Cheney's censure is still more important than freeing the slaves, prohibition or Watergate.

OTOH, if you think that those other topics are more important, why not concentrate on them first? Surely you objective should be to develop a balanced article.

TFD (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

In the year 3000 your great, great, great granddaughter will be pretty fine. ––FormalDude talk 05:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

TFD I will pretend to be in the future, as you put it, if you can answer my previous question for you on how this qualifies as UNDUE and isn't running the risk of a tautological issue. I would also like to remind you that WP:DUE says "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Cheers. DN (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If the censure was the tangible sign of the party's extinction, I would think they'd be mentioned even on spaceships and other planets. We do still study the fall of Rome. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If the party disappeared due to the RNC censuring these two people, then a book about the party published in 3000 would have a chapter about it. But we cannot assume that will happen. In fact, the party has long had a division between Main St and Wall St Republicans, with the first group dominating the congressional caucus and the second providing the presidential candidates. Sometimes these two groups collide with disastrous results: 1912, 1924, 1964, 1976, 1992 and 2020. It's just wishful thinking that this time will spell their doom. TFD (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It's funny how the left and the right share that same problem, yet can't seem to stand each other long enough to work on that together. Imagine what would happen if they did. Oh no...I've said too much...THEY'RE HERE! HEELLLPPP!!! DN (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

TFD, that is not a Repbulcian divide. It's just a reflection of the way Reps and Senators are chosen and elected. It's always been roughly like that in both parties. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• No, per WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. Some1 (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Some1, would you mind going into some detail as to how and why this content qualifies as WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE, please? Thank you. DN (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to respond to every no vote. Toa Nidhiki05 12:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't, but since you mentioned it, how else would you propose I get different perspectives on how certain policies and guidelines apply from comments that just cite said policies and guidelines without context? I'm not trying to be impolite, but if it makes you nervous or uncomfortable I will try to limit my questions to just those types of responses and any direct questions etc... DN (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest you read WP:BLUDGEON. Generally speaking, the more times you repeat an argument, the less effective it is. Toa Nidhiki05 13:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Nidhiki05 Since I have been, for the most part, just asking people to put their policy claims in context and not just expounding my positions, I would suggest you read it as well. Or, perhaps you could ask Springee to explain it for you? DN (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• No (would support inclusion in Republican National Committee, Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger). There's really no ideal place to put this in the article. At this point, the material is too tangential to DJT for it to be put under "The Trump Era" (kinda of an odd subsection name now that I think of it).Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• No per WP:RECENTISM. Definitely belongs in other articles (such as on the people themselves) but not necessarily in such a broad historical article such as this. --Jayron32 12:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Hmmm - It would be a little awkward tacked onto the end there. At first I was leaning "yes" (and if pressed, that's where I'd land), because while only one cite is provided, it has been covered by every major news source in some depth, the coverage is specifically about the party rather than individuals, and connects to other actions/events in this paragraph. I'm not quite supporting, however, because it just doesn't sound right placed at the end of this big, sprawling, paragraph. I'm not against including the underlying content, but there must be a way to more succinctly mention it along with the storming of the capitol. Really, though, the place it would be most at home is in a section about how effective the Republican Party has been at punishing members who go against the party (through acts like this, primary challenges, using conservative media dating back to Limbaugh, etc.). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this, the article is a bit of a mess (see composition section) and this may be stemming in part from disagreements over how to prioritize. Little things getting in the way of big things. DN (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Rhododendrites I think a section on the RNC and its actions, including censures etc. would be prudent in this case. Would you agree? I honestly think this would be good place to start at this point. Thanks. DN (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• No per failing WP:10YT and WP:RECENTISM. Put it somewhere more suitable. Iraniangal777 (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment McConnell sidesteps question on Jan. 6 call from Trump by Mychael Schnell 03/29/22 About 2 months since this event first broke the news, The RNC censure and "LPD" language largely seems to continue to receive mention in related news stories regarding the January 6th attack by Trump supporters. "One of the latest spars between the two came after the Republican National Committee censured GOP Reps. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) for their criticism of Trump and involvement in the panel probing the January riot. The censure resolution characterized the Capitol attack as “ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse,” which drew bipartisan criticism." DN (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

That appears to be a mention in context of the Jan 6 Commission, not the GOP in general. I don't see that really helping with the lasting significance claim. Springee (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yes This is a minimal NPOV indication of the core position of the current Republican party -- that it stands with Trump and promotes his personal interests. That this position is likely to change in the future will not cause the current stance of the party fail the ten-year test, any more than the Republicans' having freed the Southern slaves has been invalidated due to the party's current stance on racial matters. SPECIFICO talk 19:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)